Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Technological Education

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now establish a technological university in Great Britain on the lines of Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): No, Sir. It is the policy of the Government to look to the existing universities, university colleges, and colleges of advanced technology to set patterns of development. Full-time higher education in all its aspects will be considered by the Committee of Inquiry of which, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, Lord Robbins has recently been appointed Chairman by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Mr. Donnelly: Has the Financial Secretary seen the announcement by Sir John Cockcroft that we shall need something of the nature of an M.I.T. university in addition to the existing plans of the Government in the next ten or fifteen years? What has he to say about that?

Sir E. Boyle: I have seen that observation. I think that, now that this highly important Committee of Inquiry has been appointed, this is obviously one of the important subjects which will come within its purview. It is worth remembering that the University Grants Committee envisages that two-thirds of the places in the enlarged university buildings programme announced on 25th January will be occupied by students reading science and technology.

Dr. A. Thompson: Will the Minister bear in mind that the German experiment in technological universities, where they have eight of these universities producing 50,000 graduates annually, has been extremely successful? Is not there something to be said for a system different from the ancient form of university structure, and more appropriate to technological research, organised on similar lines to the institutes in America and Germany?

Sir E. Boyle: Yes, Sir. I am quite sure that the Committee of Inquiry will wish to consider the experience in all parts of the world. But I think that hon. Gentlemen will agree that the pattern of university development appropriate for one country may not be appropriate in exactly the same form for another country.

Income Tax (Schedule A)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that certain inspectors of taxes admit, as part of maintenance relief claims against Income Tax Schedule A submitted by owner-occupiers of houses, the cost of replacement of dustbins or other such refuse receptacles, and the cost of hiring such articles from a local authority, whereas other inspectors of taxes do not so admit; and whether in the interests of household hygiene and domestic cleanliness and to establish uniformity of practice, he will give directions that the cost of all dustbins and similar receptacles as replacements, and the cost of hire, shall be admissible for appropriate relief.

Sir E. Boyle: No, Sir. Dustbins do not form part of the property assessed under Schedule A and the cost of replacing or hiring them is not allowable in a maintenance claim by an owner-occupier.

Mr. Nabarro: If that is so, why are certain inspectors of taxes allowing these refuse receptacles, whether hired from the local authority or bought, as part of a maintenance relief claim? Having regard to the confusion which exists about what are allowable items and what are disallowable items under a maintenance relief claim against Income Tax Schedule A, would not my right hon. Friend consider instructing the inspectors of taxes to enclose in the envelopes carrying the Schedule A assessment a detailed list, in


proper form and carefully categorised, of all the items which are admissible and those which are not? Some of us are not as clever as others, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Sir E. Boyle: That last point had not escaped me. I will certainly consider the suggestion my hon. Friend has made.

Mr. Nabarro: I will draft it for them.

Sir E. Boyle: Some inspectors may have passed small items like this, but the principle is clear, and I am glad that my hon. Friend has given me the opportunity of reaffirming it.

Surtax

Mr. Holland: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the loss in revenue if all rates of Surtax were halved.

Sir E. Boyle: On the basis of last year's Budget estimate £95 million.

Mr. Holland: Without prejudice to anything which may or may not appear in the Budget statement of my right hon. and learned Friend, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he thinks that a reduction in this high level of Surtax might help to encourage the development of maximum efficiency in the sphere of technology and management?

Sir E. Boyle: I had better not say what I think on that subject at present.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make arrangements to ascertain how many underground workers in the mining industry pay Surtax.

Sir E. Boyle: I do not think that a special inquiry for this purpose would be justified.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Why not? Should we not be armed with these figures in order to see how many of our constituents are likely to benefit if the rate of Surtax is reduced?

Sir E. Boyle: No, Sir. With respect, the hon. Gentleman is falling into the old Marxist fallacy that labour power is the sole source of value. We shall not earn our living in the world unless we not only extract things but manufacture and also sell them, and I think

that a special inquiry of this kind would not be worth while.

Mr. Milne: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman is ascertaining these figures, will he bear in mind the contribution that the mining community makes to the nation, and see that there is an improvement in any position that he does discover?

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are his proposals for raising the starting point for the imposition of Surtax to £6,000.

Sir E. Boyle: I cannot express a view on this proposal before the Budget.

Mr. Shinwell: Does that mean that the hon. Gentleman is reluctant to agree with the proposal that has been made in this connection? Does he realise that his reply will come as a shock in certain quarters of the House, but that I would regard the reluctance of the Treasury to proceed in this undesirable direction as a unique example of its intelligence and commonsense?

Sir E. Boyle: That is very flattering, indeed, but, while we all respect the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt), he is not Chancellor of the Exchequer.

National Theatre

Dr. Stross: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the mounting public interest in the possibility that, after long delay, the National Theatre will be built on the site allocated on the South Bank; and when he will make an announcement about this.

Mr. Jeger: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the proposals for a National Theatre to be built on the South Bank.

Sir H. Kerr: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he is now in a position to make a statement about the National Theatre.

Sir E. Boyle: My right hon. and learned Friend appreciates the interest taken in this matter on both sides of the House and has asked me to say that he will inform the House of the Government's decision as soon as he is in a position to do so.

Dr. Stross: Would the Financial Secretary be good enough to inform his right hon. and learned Friend that not only is there interest on both sides of this House but in all parts of the country in this matter, that the country has waited about a hundred years for this statement in reality, and we should very much like to have an affirmative answer upon it?

Sir E. Boyle: I quite appreciate the widespread interest. Of course my right hon. and learned Friend is as anxious as anyone to proceed to an early decision, but the subject is a large and rather difficult one and the Government must be sure that their decision is the correct one.

Sir H. Kerr: Would my hon. Friend be willing to receive further representations on this subject?

Sir E. Boyle: I should certainly be prepared to see my hon. Friend and any other hon. Members, on either side of the House, if they would like to come to see me.

Mr. Jeger: Is the Financial Secretary aware that this long continued and unnecessary delay in making up the mind of the Government on this question is building up their reputation for meanness and mediocrity? Are not the Government being put to shame in this matter by the imaginative and progressive policy of the L.C.C. in developing the South Bank?

Sir E. Boyle: I do not consider that the Government's record of support for the arts generally, in comparison with that of any previous Government, can be considered all that mean. In other respects, I do not think I can add to what I have said.

Sir P. Agnew: When the time comes when the Government feel able to give more money to art, will they consider, not putting it into bricks and mortar, but making it available to our provincial repertory companies, from whom and among whom so many of our leading dramatists have made their successful beginnings in their profession?

Sir E. Boyle: That supplementary question goes rather further than the Question on the Order Paper, but my hon. Friend will recall that last year's

grants to the Arts Council resulted in considerable extra money for provincial repertory companies.

Derv Fuel Oil

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received for a reduction in the rate of tax on Derv fuel oil.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber): My right hon. and learned Friend has received such representations from the Joint Fuel Tax Committee for the Passenger Road Transport Industry as well as from some other sources.

Mr. Allaun: Is the Minister aware that it is this tax of 2s. 6d. a gallon, or 200 per cent. of the basic cost, which has been responsible for the steady contraction of bus services and the increase in bus fares? Is it not a shocking anomaly that, while oil for other purposes is entirely tax-free, oil for bus services is burdened with this heavy tax?

Mr. Barber: I am afraid that I cannot accept what the hon. Member says, but I am sure he will be pleased to know that tomorrow, on my right hon. and learned Friend's behalf, I am receiving a deputation from the Joint Fuel Tax Committee.

Customs Duty and Purchase Tax

Commander Courtney: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will investigate the circumstances under which duty and Purchase Tax were levied by Her Majesty's Customs on Mr. R. E. Rushen and another British survivor of the Mexican Airlines crash on their arrival at London Airport on 25th January.

Mr. Lipton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the circumstances in which two British survivors of an air crash in the United States of America were delayed by the customs authorities at London Airport on 25th January last.

Sir B. Janner: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that two British businessmen who survived the airline disaster at Idlewild Airport in New York on 19th January were charged a substantial sum of money in respect of duty and Purchase Tax in


connection with the clothes which they had been obliged to purchase in New York to replace items in their luggage which had been destroyed; and whether it is proposed to issue special instructions to deal with cases of this kind in the future.

Mr. Barber: The articles declared to the Customs by these two gentlemen were well in excess of the tolerances normally allowed, and duty and Purchase Tax were properly charged. There is no exception for replacement articles as such, but charges were not, in fact, made on any clothing which had been worn or was being worn. Because of the substantial numbers of articles declared the Customs examination took about twenty minutes, but in the special circumstances of the case the wives and friends of the two passengers were allowed to join them in the Customs hall during that time. All possible consideration was shown by the Customs, and there is no need for further investigation or instructions.

Commander Courtney: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that many people consider that the attitude of the Customs officers in this case was certainly rather unimaginative? Will he ensure that, in future, exporters who go through these vicissitudes are not exposed to the same type of trouble?

Mr. Barber: I have made very careful inquiries about this. On the very day on which I saw Mr. Rushen's letter in The Times I called for a report. I am quite satisfied that these two passengers were treated courteously and as sympathetically as possible. Some of the statements in the letter to The Times certainly do not coincide with the information I have been given.

Mr. Lipton: While most people find the Customs officers at London Airport generally reasonable and considerate, was not this a rather exceptional case in which the strict letter of the law need not have been quite so rigorously enforced?

Mr. Barber: As I think I said, because of the special circumstances of the case, the articles that had been worn or that the passengers were wearing were subtracted from the totals to arrive at the chargeable amounts.

Income Tax and Surtax

Mr. John Hall: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the total Income Tax paid by two single persons each earning £2,000 per annum; and what additional Income and Surtax would be payable if the two individual taxpayers were married.

Sir E. Boyle: £986 1s. 01. and £231 5s. 0d. respectively. The latter figure is made up of £270 Surtax less £38 15s. 0d. reduction in Income Tax liability.

Mr. Hall: Although it was a little difficult to hear what my hon. Friend said, I gather that the tax paid by a married couple will be greater than the tax paid by two single people liable to tax, with incomes of over £2,000? If that is so, why should the Treasury want to encourage immorality? Are not there enough temptations already without a fiscal temptation to live in sin instead of in the holy bonds of matrimony? Will my hon. Friend look at this again before the next Finance Bill?

Sir E. Boyle: The simple point is that as a married couple they would pay less Income Tax, but they would become liable to Surtax. We cannot debate the whole question of aggregation this afternoon, but Government policy here is wholly in line with the views of the Royal Commission.

Sir G. Nicholson: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that, by and large, the Treasury is opposed to sin?

Purchase Tax

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reasons radio and television sets, cosmetics and cars are still subject to Purchase Tax at 50 per cent., whereas electrical appliances attract 25 per cent. Purchase Tax, floor covering and pottery 12½ per cent., and clothes and furniture 5 per cent.; what considerations prompted these rates in the current year; and whether it is his policy to continue such fiscal practices involving a radio or television set being taxed twice as heavily as any other electrical appliance and four times as heavily as a carpet.

Mr. Barber: The reasons were given by my right hon. and learned Friend's predecessor in his Budget Speech in 1958, when he established the present structure of the Purchase Tax. As to the last part of the Question, I cannot anticipate my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget Statement.

Mr. Nabarro: Is it not a fact that there is a great deal of difference in calibre and fiscal philosophy between the last Chancellor of the Exchequer and the present one? Are we to suppose that all the policies enunciated by the last Chancellor are to be practised by the present Chancellor and that these undesirable differentials in Purchase Tax—which, for example, cause a radio set to be taxed ten times as heavily as an expensive cocktail cabinet—are to be carried forward indefinitely into the future?

Mr. Barber: I think that my hon. Friend—I say this with great respect—would be well advised not to suppose what he has just suggested.

Admiralty Headquarters Organisation

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reexamination there has been in the last two years of the level at which delegation of staff numbers begins at the Admiralty; and with what results.

Sir E. Boyle: None. I assume that the hon. and learned Member has in mind one of the recommendations of Sub-Committee B of the Select Committee on Estimates last Session, concerning the Admiralty headquarters organisation. This recommendation was accepted with the rider that examination of levels of delegation would require to take account of the circumstances of the other two Service Departments. My right hon. and learned Friend has not yet completed preliminary consideration of what would be the best arrangements for the Service Departments.

Mr. Mallalieu: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that it costs very much more to employ in the Admiralty a serving naval officer than it does to employ a civil servant in the same job? Is it not, therefore, desirable to have this matter

expedited and an inquiry put forward as soon as possible?

Sir E. Boyle: I quite agree that, of course, we want to look into the matter carefully, but I think that examination of levels of delegation must take into account all the circumstances in other Service Departments, and I would much rather see this matter looked at fully than that a false and facile conclusion should be arrived at.

Shipping Earnings

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the decline of shipping earnings for invisible exports over the last year, to the nearest convenient date.

Mr. Barber: The latest available estimates of the net contribution of British shipping to the balance of payments collected by the General Council of British Shipping, show that there was a decline of £35 million in 1959 as compared with 1958. Although the figures for 1960 are not yet available, there does not appear to have been any further decline.

Mr. Digby: Is it not a fact that there has been a very great decline since 1952, when the figure was more than double? Is this not serious from the economic as well as the national point of view? Will my hon. Friend ask his right hon. and learned Friend to look at the shipping industry sympathetically in view of these figures?

Mr. Barber: I agree with my hon. Friend that there has been a considerable decline over the years since 1952, and I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will take note of what he has said.

Messrs. Richard Thomas and Baldwins

Mr. M. Foot: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what general instructions he has given to ensure that the recent successful operations of Richard Thomas and Baldwins are suitably publicised.

Mr. Barber: This is a matter for the company and there is no reason why I should intervene. The company's recent report and accounts and the Chairman's statement have already been the subject


of a good deal of comment in the Press. I understand that, as is usual for companies of this size, arrangements are being made to publish the chairman's statement, either in full or in an abridged form, in a number of leading newspapers and periodicals.

Mr. Foot: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that limitations are imposed by the Government themselves on the manner in which Richard Thomas and Baldwins can publicise their achievements? As this is the most successful steel firm in the country and in view of the large amounts being spent by private steel firms to advertise their achievements, does not the hon. Gentleman think that more efforts should be made by the Government to publicise the success of this company?

Mr. Barber: I do not think that this is a matter for the Government. It is a matter for the company. I understand the original intention was that the facts about the company—the statement made by the chairman, either in full or an abridged form—was to be published today. It is due to certain technical printing difficulties that the publication has been delayed.

Mr. Jay: As the Government through tax rebates are helping to subsidise the advertisements of some of the privately-owned steel companies, is there not some obligation on the Government to do the same thing for companies which they own?

Mr. Barber: No, I cannot agree with that.

Mr. C. Osborne: Can my hon. Friend confirm what has just been said, namely that restrictions are imposed by the Government on advertising by this company? If so, what are the restrictions? Is not it unreasonable and unfair that they should be imposed? Why are they imposed?

Mr. Barber: I will certainly look into that aspect, but no one has given me notice of any such restrictions. If the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) will write to me, I will see if there are any. I know of none.

Mr. Jay: If the Treasury is the responsible Department as the one that owns these shares, surely the Minister

responsible to the House should know whether there are such restrictions?

Mr. Barber: On the information i have at present, all I can say is that I know of no such restrictions. I assume that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale must have something particular in mind, and I am willing to look into it.

Mr. Foot: If the hon. Gentleman will give me an undertaking that when I give him the information about the restrictions he will remove them, I shall be gratified.

Mr. Barber: I will consider any representations the hon. Gentleman wishes to make.

Public Works Loan Board (Interest Rates)

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from local authorities protesting about rates of interest chargeable by the Public Works Loan Board following the recent reduction of the Bank Rate; and whether he will take steps to bring those rates more into line with the Bank Rate.

Dr. A. Thompson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent, when fixing the rate of interest charged by the Public Works Loan Board, he takes into account current Bank Rate.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, following the 1 per cent. reduction in the Bank Rate, he will similarly reduce interest charges on housing loans from the Public Works Loan Board and on other loans for council house building.

Mr. Ross: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will assist the local authorities in the new and additional capital tasks placed on them by the Government by reducing the Public Works Loan Board's rate of interest.

Mr. Barber: Several local authorities have recently made representations about the level of the Public Works Loan Board's lending rates. These rates reflect the cost of local authority borrowing on the market and changes are made whenever alterations in the market rate justify this. The recent trend of market rates has provided no justification for reducing


the P.W.L.B. rates. The level of Bank Rate has no direct link with the level of the P.W.L.B. rates.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that local authorities are complaining bitterly about the adverse effects of these penal interest rates on the activities which the Government have repeatedly imposed on them? The Government have even extended local authority functions, particularly in regard to mental health services. If the Government are serious about this, why do they not give local authorities some encouragement?

Mr. Barber: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have made it clear on a number of occasions that we do not think that it is right to insulate local authorities from a general trend of this sort in interest rates by giving them what would in effect be a concealed subsidy.

Dr. A. Thompson: Is not the hon. Gentleman concerned about the position revealed in the last Annual Report of the Public Works Loan Board, in which it was revealed that the number of loans has fallen catastrophically since 1951? The Report reveals that local authorities are being compelled to postpone, abandon and suspend essential projects in the fields of education, housing and public health.

Mr. Barber: If local authorities cannot borrow on reasonable terms in the market, they are entitled to go to the Public Works Loan Board.

Mr. Ross: Is not the Minister aware that the Government themselves have placed upon local authorities new and additional duties in respect of education and local health which will demand considerable capital expenditure? Is not he aware that local authorities throughout the country are in considerable straits because of this? If he wishes the hopes of the House, and even the proclaimed hopes of the Government, to come to anything, he must face the fact that the present high interest rates are militating against the fruition of these plans.

Mr. Barber: I can only repeat that the present rates of interest are a reflection of the general pressure of demand for capital. We have, time and time again, made our position quite clear,

namely, that we believe that as far as possible local authorities should borrow from the market in their own name and on their own credit.

Mr. Jay: Has the Economic Secretary noticed that President Kennedy intends to combine lower long-term interest with high short-term interest rates?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Why do we have to have him brought into it every time?

Mr. Jay: Can the Economic Secretary explain, even if the noble Lord cannot, why if this can be done in the United States it cannot be done here?

Mr. Barber: No, I cannot.

Mr. Allaun: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that council flats costing £2,400 to build eventually cost £9,063 before the interest at the current rate of 6 per cent. has been paid for sixty years? This means that, if there were a reduction only to 5 per cent. it would save £1,470, or 9s. 5d. a week in rent, and 5 per cent. is still 2 per cent. higher than the rate was under the Labour Government.

Mr. Barber: The hon. Gentleman asked in his Question if my right hon. Friend will reduce interest charges. I have already given him the answer to that. I cannot without notice go into detailed calculations.

Mr. Manuel: Has the hon. Gentleman made any reply to Ayr County Council, which has made representations to him on this subject? Is he aware that the Finance Committee, after an exhaustive review of its public work commitments, finds itself totally unable to undertake them because of the high interest rate charged by the Public Works Loan Board? Will not he try to equalise it to the Bank Rate of 5 per cent. and give local authorities some hope of completing the promises made to the electors during the last election?

Mr. Barber: The hon. Gentleman has a Question later on about the Ayr County Council. However, I will tell him now that the rate for long-term borrowing has not fallen since the Bank Rate was last reduced.

Mr. Hamilton: On a point of order. In view of the extremely unsatisfactory


nature of those replies, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Industrial Production

Mr. Ginsburg: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give the figures for the United Kingdom for increases in industrial production for the third quarter of 1952 to the first quarter of 1955, for the first quarter of 1955 to the third quarter of 1958, and for the third quarter of 1958 to the second quarter of 1960; and if he will give, on the basis of statistics available to him through the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation, the corresponding aggregate figures for the same periods for the European Economic Community countries.

Mr. Barber: As the Answer contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Ginsburg: Do not those figures show that between 1955 and 1958 while this country stood still Europe surged ahead? Is not this a strong argument for ending the credit squeeze now, otherwise the same thing will happen again?

Mr. Barber: In the economic debate earlier this week I dealt at considerable length with the question of growth. Simple comparisons of the rates of growth of production are certainly no index of economic success.

Following are the figures:


PERCENTAGE INCREASES IN INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION (SEASONALLY ADJUSTED)*


Period
United Kingdom
Countries in the European Economic Community


3rd Quarter, 1952–1st Quarter, 1955
23
24


1st Quarter, 1955–3rd Quarter, 1958
1
22


3rd Quarter, 1958–2nd Quarter, 1960
14
18


*The figures published by the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation for the European Economic Community countries exclude the construction industry in the definition of industrial production and the United Kingdom figures have been adjusted to a comparable basis.

Interest, Profits and Dividends

Mr. Ginsburg: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the percentage decline over 1950 for net receipts by the United Kingdom of interest, profits, and dividends for the years 1957, 1958, and 1959.

Mr. Barber: 50 per cent., 74 per cent. and 48 per cent. respectively.

Mr. Ginsburg: Is not this a very serious decline indeed, especially as in 1950 this item had not recovered from the war? Does not this show that we are paying an extremely high price at present for the Government's dear money policy?

Mr. Barber: The hon. Gentleman refers to 1950, which is the base year which he has taken in his Question. It is only fair to point out that payments on the North American loans did not commence until 1951 and in the subsequent years in which payments were made—every year, apart from 1957—they have averaged about £40 million.

Trustee Savings Banks (Cheque Service)

Mr. Jay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in discussions on the start of a cheque service by the Trustee Savings Banks.

Mr. Barber: I have nothing to add to the reply given to the right hon. Gentleman by my right hon. and noble Friend on 24th May, 1960; we are still awaiting a further approach from the Trustee Savings Banks Association on the basis of the investigations which it has been pursuing in the meantime.

Mr. Jay: Is the Economic Secretary aware that, as the Government have delayed the introduction of this very desirable public service for over a year, suspicions are bound to grow that they are giving way to pressure from the commercial banks? As we have been extremely patient about asking Questions on this subject, will the hon. Gentleman now undertake to make a definite statement very soon?

Mr. Barber: The delay has not been caused in the way suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. The fact is that the


initiative has been with the Trustee Savings Bank Association for the last eight months. Prior to that, I saw the chairman and other members of the Association, and I shall be only too happy to see them again as soon as they feel that it will be useful to bring anything to my notice.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Will the Economic Secretary ask his right hon. and learned Friend to call his right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General into these consultations and inquiries to see how far he can introduce postal cheques as well?

Mr. Barber: I think that that is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Hoy: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that it is not altogether true to say that the initiative lies with the Trustee Savings Banks Association? Those banks are, in fact, dependent on what co-operation they can get from the clearance houses, represented by the joint stock banks. Is it not the fact that the joint stock banks are putting many difficulties in the way of the trustee savings banks, because they do not want trustee savings bank depositors to have a cheque scheme at all?

Mr. Barber: The fact is that I met representatives of the Association on 28th April last. It was then agreed that the Association would have to examine certain aspects, and the arrangement was that they would come back to me when they thought it would be useful to have further discussion. I am quite ready to see the chairman and other members of the Association as soon as they like.

I.S.H.R.A. (Prior Stocks)

Mr. Jay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer Whether he will give an assurance that iron and steel prior stocks now held by the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency will not be sold at a discount below the issue price, or disposed of while gilt-edged prices are at the present low levels.

Mr. Barber: No, Sir.

Mr. Jay: Is not the Government's persistence in attempting to sell these steel prior stocks at present not only totally

unnecessary, but forcing down gilt-edged prices to record low levels, and causing losses of tens of thousands of pounds to a very large number of small investors?

Mr. Barber: I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree, for reasons that are readily apparent, that I really cannot enter into any discussion about particular aspects of possible future operations by the Agency.

Mr. Jay: But cannot the Economic Secretary give an assurance, in the interests of both taxpayers and small investors, that the Government will not sell these stocks while gilt-edged prices are at their present extremely low level?

Mr. Barber: I cannot make any comment on that.

News Chronicle Press Clipping Library

Mr. Sydney Irving: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider entering into negotiations with the owners for the purchase of the News Chronicle Press Clipping Library, for the purpose of providing a comprehensive central Press clipping service for use by the twenty-four Government Departmental libraries and the Central Office of Information; and if he will make this service available also to the House of Commons Library.

Sir E. Boyle: No, Sir.

Mr. Irving: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many hon. Members will be very disappointed with that Answer? Does he not think that the work of Government Departments and hon. Members alike would be greatly facilitated by the use of this very fine service, and that, perhaps, the cost might not be greater than that entailed in the necessarily fragmented services provided at the moment for Government Departments? Will he not look again at this matter?

Sir E. Boyle: I have looked at the matter again very carefully. I am satisfied that the Central Office of Information has adequate arrangements for the provision of Press clippings. As to the provision of the service for the House of Commons, that is really a matter, in the first place, for the House authorities,


but if the hon. Gentleman cares to write to me, or to make further representations, I will, of course, consider them.

Insured Employees (Earnings)

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many adult insured employees are currently earning less than £10 per week, how many between £10 and £15, and how many over £15.

Sir E. Boyle: I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the hon. Gentleman quite sure that 'the information is not available? I put down a similar Question two years ago, I think, and got the information from the Treasury. I think that it would help us in ascertaining the relative degrees of hardship in the community if, in addition to knowing the numbers of people paying Surtax, we also had the numbers of those earning under £10 a week.

Sir E. Boyle: No, Sir. For reasons that I am perfectly ready to explain to the hon. Gentleman in correspondence, the information for which he has asked is not available, but I can say that the Ministry of Labour's half-yearly inquiry, held in October, 1960, into the earnings and hours of manual workers, did contain an additional question which enabled the distribution of earnings of men and women working full time to be calculated for the industries covered by the inquiry. The Ministry of Labour hopes to publish this information in the Ministry of Labour Gazette by the middle of this year.

Mr. Ross: Can the hon. Gentleman say how hon. Members can make an assessment of the effect of the new graduated pensions without that information?

Sir E. Boyle: Of course, it is perfectly true that the Government Actuary did publish certain information in Table C of Appendix II to his Report on the National Insurance Bill, 1959, on the earnings of a number of persons in various workers' groups in an average week. That is not quite the same as the information now being asked for, but I will certainly see that as precise information as possible will be available to hon. Members.

Sales Tax

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what rate of sales tax would be necessary, excluding food and items like alcoholic drink, tobacco and petrol, already subject to other taxes, in order to yield the same revenue as the present rates of Purchase Tax; and what flat rate of Purchase Tax, on the same items, would be required to yield the same result.

Mr. Barber: About 12 per cent. and 16 per cent. respectively.

Mr. Digby: Will my hon. Friend say whether, in his opinion, in addition to other difficulties, the cost of collecting a sales tax would be abnormally high?

Mr. Barber: The question of a sales tax was considered very carefully by my right hon. and learned Friend's predecessor and, in his Budget statement in 1958, he dealt with it at some length and explained why he did not think that a sales tax would be proper.

Interest Rates

Mr. C. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what negotiations he has had with the United States Government concerning co-operation in order to secure greater uniformity in the interest rates applicable to the United States of America and Europe; how soon London rates will be reduced to the United States level; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Barber: My hon. Friend will not expect me to make any statement about interest rates in the future. My right hon. and learned Friend emphasised in his speech on 6th February the importance which he attached to maintaining close contact with the United States Administration on financial and economic matters.

Mr. Osborne: Since the American Government obviously want interest rates to be brought down, not only in their country but in this country, and since the export trade of the world is conducted either in dollars or sterling, surely it is in the interests of the world's export industry that we should have uniformity in these interest rates—and low interest


rates? As a corollary, since high interest rates undoubtedly have evil social consequences at home, do not we want to reduce them as soon as we can?

Mr. Barber: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point in asking this Question but it has, after all, long been recognised that Ministers do not speculate in this House on possible changes in interest rates.

Income Tax (Long-Term Sickness)

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in framing his next Budget, he will make arrangement for those who have suffered long-term sickness to spread their taxable earnings over more than one year.

Sir E. Boyle: I have noted the hon. Member's suggestion, but I cannot anticipate my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget statement.

Mr. Hynd: In preparing for the Budget, will the Minister have regard to the problem facing a worker who might have had an illness stretching over, perhaps, twelve months, who has incurred debt, and who has a long period of work ahead before he can again get financially on his feet? As such an arrangement is in operation for certain professional workers, would he not try to extend it to other workers?

Sir E. Boyle: I can assure the hon. Member that my right hon. and learned Friend will consider this. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that sickness is only one of quite a number of reasons for fluctuations of income. This is rather a big and, I think, difficult subject.

Mr. Donnelly: Can the Financial Secretary tell the House whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his absence from the House today contemplating the Budget, is impaled Scylla or Charybdis?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Callaghan: Is the Financial Secretary reluctant to reply, because he fears that he may have the Closure moved on him again?

Sir E. Boyle: No. With respect, I really did not think that that supplementary question was worth answering, and I thought that we might get on.

Inspector of Taxes v. Rogerson

Sir H. Butcher: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the case of Wilkins, Her Majesty's Inspector of Taxes v. Rogerson in which judgments have been given in the Chancery Division and the Court of Appeal; why this was taken to the courts, in view of the fact that the original decision of the Special Commissioners was confirmed both in the Chancery Division and the Court of Appeal; and how much were the costs, including those of Mr. Rogerson, incurred by the Crown in connection with the High Court proceedings.

Sir E. Boyle: Yes, Sir. The Inland Revenue took this case to the courts because an important point of law was involved. The Crown's costs, including those of Mr. Rogerson, were about £900.

Sir H. Butcher: Since a person earning £2,000 a year, or a director, however limited his salary, is in no way affected, what is the purpose of taking an ordinary wage earner through the courts on a matter of £5.

Sir E. Boyle: In fact, this was a test case on what was felt to be a novel and quite important point. In his judgment Lord Justice Donovan said:
The case wears an aspect of triviality which is deceptive.
I do not think that it was an unimportant case.

Income Tax (Farmers)

Sir H. Butcher: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what instructions he has given to his inspectors concerning assessment of tax in cases where a trade of farming is being carried on by a taxpayer on a commercial basis and with a view to the realisation of profits within the meaning of Section 20 of the Finance Act, 1960, and in respect of which the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has made or has undertaken to make grants under the appropriate Acts in respect of capital expenditure on the farm by the person carrying on the trade although such trading may result in loss.

Sir E. Boyle: I am not clear what is the point about which my hon. Friend is concerned. If he will send me further details, I will make inquiries and write to him.

Sir H. Butcher: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but, if he is unable to understand this simple Question, how does he expect the taxpayer to understand the Finance Act? Will he, either now or in writing, give me an assurance that when the skilled officers of the Ministry of Agriculture make a capital grant to a farmer, thus recognising him as farming in a serious manner, the farmer will not be exposed to attack by officials of the Inland Revenue?

Sir E. Boyle: One thing I can do is to refer my hon. Friend to the very full explanation given by my right hon. and learned Friend's predecessor in his Second Reading speech on last year's Finance Bill, which is reported in HANSARD, Vol. 622, column 892. That is, I think, the clearest exposition of the point that I know.

Sir H. Butcher: Will my hon. Friend direct the attention of inspectors of taxes to that and ask them to take the guidance of the officials of the Ministry of Agriculture?

University Places

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consult with the University Grants Committee to see that the most efficient and economic use is made of places available at all universities by the provision of a co-ordinated entrance policy and a universities clearing house.

Sir E. Boyle: These are matters for the universities themselves, and the hon. Member may have noticed that a report relating to the procedure for admission of students was published this week with the authority of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals.

Mr. Chetwynd: But as the Chancellor is responsible for finding the bulk of the money for this purpose, has he not some influence to bring to bear on the universities to deal with this matter expeditiously? Is he not aware that the chance of getting into a university now is almost as slight as the chance of winning the treble chance itself? In view of the increasing numbers of young people who will be anxious to go to university in the next few years, is it not high time that this issue was dealt with expeditiously?

Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Gentleman may have noticed that an important new feature of the report to which I have referred is that it recommends the universities to consider the establishment of central machinery to deal with the problem of applications. I understand that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals is convening a conference of university representatives in March to examine the very important proposals in that report. I would rather not comment in advance of that meeting.

Mr. Chetwynd: Does that include Oxford and Cambridge? As long as they are outside these provisions, it is almost impossible for the other universities to work out a scheme.

Sir E. Boyle: This is the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals.

Tobacco and Cigarettes (Customs and Excise Duty)

Mr. Woodnutt: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will authorise the Customs and Excise to refund duty in respect of stocks of tobacco and cigarettes damaged by flooding.

Mr. Barber: No, Sir.

Mr. Woodnutt: Is it not extremely unfair and unreasonable that companies should be expected to pay Customs and Excise duties on cigarettes and tobacco destroyed by flooding? Does my hon. Friend agree that, if private commerce did such things, it would be regarded almost as sharp practice? Will he ask his right hon. and learned Friend to look into the matter again?

Mr. Barber: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern but, of course, the matter does go much wider and includes, for instance, cases where goods are destroyed by fire. The fact is that there is no provision in the law under which the Department of Customs and Excise could allow a refund of duty in respect of stocks of tobacco and cigarettes damaged during the recent flooding. I looked into this very carefully when my hon. Friend wrote to me. I am sure that he will have in mind the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government on 2nd November, 1960, about the way in which people who have suffered as a result of flooding might be helped.

Mortgages (Stamp Duty)

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the loss in revenue if no Stamp Duty were payable on mortgages of £3,500 or less.

Sir E. Boyle: About £2 million.

Mr. Goodhart: Is my hon. Friend aware that the remission of this section of Stamp Duty would be of particular benefit to those who have most difficulty in purchasing their own homes?

Sir E. Boyle: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will bear my hon. Friend's point in mind.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that there is a considerable anomaly in relieving conveyances below this value from Stamp Duty in order to encourage house ownership by not very wealthy individuals and then charging a Stamp Duty when they raise the capital to enable them to make the purchase?

Sir E. Boyle: Of course, all these points will be borne in mind. I cannot make any further comment today.

Public Works Loan Board (Interest Rates)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations have been made to him by the Ayr County Council on the question of interest rates; and what has been the nature of his reply.

Mr. Barber: I am aware of these representations. I have nothing to add to what I said earlier in reply to the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton).

Mr. Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of Health said yesterday that he wanted to encourage local authorities to develop the health services which belong to them? How can they do that when such high interest rates are charged?

Mr. Barber: As one would expect, nothing that my right hon. Friend said conflicts with what I said earlier.

Mr. Manuel: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he intends

to take, following the representations made to him by Ayr County Council, regarding the high rate of interest charged by the Public Works Loan Board on money borrowed by local authorities for capital works.

Mr. Barber: I intended to answer this Question with Question No. 53.
I can only say that there is nothing that I can add to what I said in answer to the earlier Question of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton).

Mr. Manuel: Does not the Economic Secretary recognise that local authorities in Scotland are getting into particular difficulty with the build-up of public work which they cannot undertake simply because of the imposition of high interest charges by the Public Works Loan Board? I appeal to him to get his right hon. and learned Friend to consider this matter, with a view to aiding local authorities which could give him very good grounds for making the change.

Mr. Barber: As my right hon. and learned Friend said to the hon. Gentleman on previous occasions in connection with representations by the Ayr County Council, we do not consider that it is right that, with capital in short supply, local authorities should be insulated from the effects of current interest rates.

Mr. W. Hamilton: Does the hon. Gentleman recollect that his earlier replies indicated that a reduction in the interest rates to local authorities would be tantamount to giving them a subsidy? If that is so, can he explain why a farmer building a piggery gets a 50 per cent. subsidy and a local authority does not get anything at all for building a house for individuals? In addition, Colvilles steel company in Scotland is to get a £50 million subsidy from the Government with no interest whatever—at any rate. in the first year.

Mr. Barber: Those points go somewhat wider than the representations made by the Ayr County Council, but there can be no doubt that to provide preferential interest rates would be to give a concealed subsidy, because it would involve giving facilities for borrowing at rates below those ruling in the market.

Social Services

Sir. D. Walker-Smith: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will advise the setting up of a Royal Commission to review, and make recommendations upon, the financing of the social services in the context of contemporary conditions and the nation's resources.

Sir E. Boyle: No, Sir.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Would not my hon. Friend agree that there is a considerable divergence in the pattern of financing of our social services, more the result of the accident of time and history than any logical reason? Would not he agree that a review by a Royal Commission could give a detached and dispassionate study to this important question and thereby help the evolution of a system containing the highest common factor of economy, efficiency and the avoidance of hardship?

Sir E. Boyle: I agree entirely with the first part of what my right hon. and learned Friend said. Concerning the second part, I rather doubt whether this is a suitable field for recommendation by a Royal Commission, because I think that I may carry the House with me when I say that ultimately this must be in the field of political decision.

Mr. Wade: While agreeing that this is a matter for Government policy, may I ask the Minister whether his right hon. and learned Friend is considering any reform for the raising of finance for the social services which would be more just and sensible than the present system and which would be fair to the various sections of the community who are called upon to contribute?

Sir E. Boyle: We are in a period when hon. Members on both sides of the House will have full opportunity to air their views on financial affairs in this respect.

Mr. Loughlin: In view of recent Government policy on financial matters, would it not be cheaper for the nation for the Financial Secretary to purchase a copy of the document "Practice and Principles "and give it to his right hon. and learned Friend, because this is what they are putting into effect?

Sir E. Boyle: I do not want to be discourteous to one of my constituents, but I do not honestly see the point of that supplementary question.

Post-War Credits

Sir B. Janner: asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that people who have intermittent periods of illness preventing them from work are not being paid post-war credits because each of such periods does not last continuously for twenty-six weeks; and if he will amend the regulations to give greater help to sick people in need.

Sir E. Boyle: I am aware of the regulations. On the second part of the Question, I will bear the hon. Member's proposal in mind, but it presents serious practical difficulties.

Sir B. Janner: I thank the Minister for his reply. Will he give serious consideration to the matter, particularly in view of the case in Leicester which I brought to his notice in which a person, who, unfortunately, suffers from a very serious illness—he has had many periods of illness of less than twenty-six weeks duration—and is unable to obtain the post-war credits although the aggregate of the periods of illness is extremely extensive?

Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Gentleman has referred a hard case to me, as I am well aware. Therefore, I have been looking into it as carefully as I could. The difficulty is that, while a formula could be devised to meet these cases, it would be extremely difficult to operate, not only for the Revenue, but for all the other authorities which will have to certify the claims. We have isolated a number of social service categories from the point of view of priority release of post-war credits. We should be careful of going further until we are sure that any regulations will operate fairly, although I fully recognise that the case which the hon. Gentleman has raised is a hard one.

Sir B. Janner: I made a mistake in thanking the Minister. In view of the unsatisfactory reply, I propose to raise the matter on the Adjournment at an early opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEPARTMENT OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Prime Minister whether he will set up an inquiry to consider the advantages of expanding the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research into a Ministry of National Development.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): No, Sir.

Mr. Thomson: Will the Prime Minister reconsider the suggestion in the light of the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) on the utter lack of leadership by the Government? Will he descend from his Trollopian stratosphere and do something about the stagnation towards which the country is drifting?

The Prime Minister: Now that the hon. Gentleman has got off his supplementary question, I will ask him one in return. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Then I will just say this. In considering his proposal, I found it rather difficult to know whether he had included production as well as research and development.

Mr. Thomson: Will the Prime Minister take it that I was including production and research, the whole field of initiative in British industry in which there is such slackness now because of the lack of leadership from the Government?

The Prime Minister: If that be so, it is quite clear that it is a field far too large to be covered by a single organisation such as the hon. Member suggests.

Mr. Shinwell: Now that the Prime Minister has adopted the practice of asking questions of this side of the House, will he continue to do so? If he does, he will get the right answers.

The Prime Minister: I might get rather varied answers.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' CONFERENCE

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Prime Minister whether he will place the question of immigration into the United Kingdom from the Commonwealth on the agenda for the forthcoming Prime Ministers' Conference.

Mr. N. Pannell: asked the Prime Minister whether the Prime Minister of the West Indies Federation will be invited to the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference in order to participate in the discussions on immigration.

The Prime Minister: The scope of our discussions, which are private, is a matter for agreement between all Prime Ministers.
As I said on 31st January in an Answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan), since the West Indies Federation is not yet independent, it would not be appropriate to invite the Prime Minister of the Federation to the Conference.

Mr. Thomson: Is not the Prime Minister aware that there are well-inspired reports that the subject of Commonwealth immigration is to be discussed at the Prime Ministers' Conference and that there is, indeed, a great deal to be said for this because a common Commonwealth approach to the problems, particularly with the assistance of Canada and Australia, would be a great help? If the subject is to come up, will he ensure that the Prime Minister of the West Indies is invited to the conference?

The Prime Minister: I appreciate that point, but I think that it would be a breach of our system which might lead to considerable difficulties.

Mr. N. Pannell: Will my right hon. Friend agree that, in view of the great increase in immigration from the Commonwealth, this would be a suitable matter for discussion at the conference and that any such discussion would be ineffective without the presence of the Prime Minister of the West Indies Federation, since most of the immigrants come from that area? Will he consult the Prime Ministers of the independent Commonwealth countries with a view to the matter being discussed and an invitation being extended to the Federal Prime Minister 'to participate in such discussions?

The Prime Minister: I will, of course, bear that in mind, but I repeat that, in view of some of the questions we have to discuss at the conference, regarding membership and so on, I think it would be very dangerous to make this breach in our tradition to invite the Prime Minister of a country which is not independent.

Mr. Marquand: Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to the statement by the Premier of Trinidad and also, I believe, the resolution of the


Trinidad and Tobago Legislative Council to the effect that, in their view, the Prime Minister of the West Indies Federation should be here on this occasion? Is there any real difference in status between the Prime Ministers of the West Indies Federation and the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland?

The Prime Minister: The one, as we have often explained, is the result of a very long-standing agreement by which originally, going right back, the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia attended. That has been accepted. I quite see the hon. Gentleman's point, but if is not for me to make these decisions. They are corporate decisions of the Prime Ministers. I will bear in mind what he says.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEWSPAPER AND MAGAZINE INDUSTRY

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Prime Minister if he will state the precise terms of his recent reference to the Pilkington Committee relating to the financial connection between commercial television companies and the Press.

Mr. Grimond: asked the Prime Minister if he will now make a further statement on the setting up of an inquiry into the Press.

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Prime Minister whether he is yet in a position to announce his decision on the proposed inquiry into the Press mergers.

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Prime Minister if he will now set up an inquiry into the Press in accordance with the Resolution of the House of 2nd December, 1960.

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Prime Minister if he will now announce the form of inquiry he intends to set up to consider monopoly trends in the Press and in television.

Mr. Lipton: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a further statement on the subject of an inquiry into current problems of the newspaper industry.

The Prime Minister: With permission, I will answer these Questions at the end of Question Time.

Oral Answers to Questions — LAOS

Mr. Healey: asked the Prime Minister what reply he has made to Prince Sihanouk's second letter regarding the situation in Laos.

The Prime Minister: I received yesterday two further letters from Prince Sihanouk, dated 31st January and 4th February, about his proposal for a fourteen nation Conference on Laos. These letters are under consideration.

Mr. Healey: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether there is any sign so far that the Soviet Government intend to reply to his request for a recall of the International Commission? If not, surely the time has come when we should consider calling an international conference, which in any case, as I think the Prime Minister previously conceded, may be necessary even if the Commission goes back to Laos.

The Prime Minister: We are waiting for the Soviet Government's reply, and I have reason to hope that it will not be long delayed.

Mr. Mayhew: Meantime, could the Prime Minister say whether provisional preparations are being made by the three countries concerned so that, if the idea of the return of the Commission goes forward, there will not be another inordinate delay before it gets going?

The Prime Minister: I will call the attention of my noble Friend to that point.

Mr. Healey: asked the Prime Minister what communications he has had with the new President of the United States of America regarding the situation in Laos.

The Prime Minister: Any communications which I might exchange with the President of the United States on such a subject would be confidential.

Mr. Healey: As the formal position of the United States Government in relation to the Geneva Agreements of 1954 is different from that of other members of the Geneva Conference, will the right hon. Gentleman consider inviting the United States to endorse the conclusions of the 1954 Geneva Conference?

The Prime Minister: That is another point. Because I am not willing to publish these personal communiqués, that is not to say that we are not in close and constant touch with the United States Government on this question through the normal diplomatic channels.

Mr. Ridsdale: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that President Kennedy recently said that what he wanted was an independent, uncommitted and peaceful Laos, and that that statement has much approval from this side of the House?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. What we are all aiming at is that the fighting should cease and that the country should become independent and able to manage its own affairs.

Mr. Harold Davies: Is the Prime Minister aware that some of us on both sides of the House appreciate that the President of the United States is looking again at the whole problem in the Indo-Chinese peninsula? Is he also aware that, not only the United States and Britain want a neutral Laos, but the Chinese have expressed that desire and appreciate the work of Sir Anthony Eden at the 1954 Geneva Conference to establish a neutral Laos?

The Prime Minister: We must await the Soviet reply, but I think that what we are very much hoping is that we can get going the machinery to stop the fighting. If we can do that, that is the first thing. Then we can consider what should be the next step.

NEWSPAPER AND MAGAZINE INDUSTRY (ROYAL COMMISSION)

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now answer Questions Nos. 42, 46, 47, 48, 49 and 50 together.
Recent developments have given rise to public concern about the state of the newspaper and magazine industry, and, in particular, the tendency towards concentration of ownership in the industry. This concern was expressed in the House at Question Time last week, and I then said that I was considering whether some form of Governmental inquiry would be useful. I also referred to one or two specific matters on which action might be taken by the Government.
I can now tell the House that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has been in touch with Lord Jenkins, the Chairman of the Committee on Company Law, about the suggestion that in takeover bids a minimum proportion of the consideration offered should be in cash. They have agreed that this suggestion comes within the terms of reference of the Committee and Lord Jenkins has said that the Committee intend to deal with it in their report. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a copy of the letter which my right hon. Friend has written to Lord Jenkins.
In addition, my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General is writing to Sir Harry Pilkington, Chairman of the Committee on Broadcasting, about two questions which were mentioned in the House last week, namely, the general question of the relationship of the Press to television, and the more specific question of changes in the effective control of television programme companies as a result of mergers or takeovers. Again, I am circulating a copy of the letter in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
I now come to suggestions for the setting up of some new committee or commission of inquiry. I have already made it clear to the House that the Government have no power to intervene in an individual transaction which is in itself legal. Nor do I believe that any useful purpose would be served by an inquiry into the facts of the proposed transactions which have brought the matter to the attention of the House on this occasion. It has been suggested that I should invite the parties to these negoiations to call a halt, pending the institution of an inquiry. I cannot believe that it would be proper for the Government to interfere even to this extent. To do so would be to affect the interests and legal rights of the employees and shareholders of the companies concerned in a matter in which Her Majesty's Government have no authority to act. Whether it may seem desirable to the parties concerned to call a halt in the negotiations, in the light of what I have to say today, is a matter for them, and them alone, to decide.
At the same time, there is a general feeling that these specific negotiations are symptomatic of some general unease in the industry as a whole. The recent closure, through inability to pay its way,


of a national daily newspaper with a circulation exceeding 1 million, clearly came as a shock to the public. And the more recent developments are widely taken to suggest that conditions in the industry are such as to lead inevitably towards concentration of ownership and a reduction in—to quote the words of the Royal Commission of 1949:
the number and variety of the voices speaking to the public through the Press".
After consideration of the views that have been expressed, I have decided that an inquiry into such questions as these should be undertaken. I think that such an inquiry should have the status of a Royal Commission. I therefore propose to recommend to the Queen the establishment of a Royal Commission with the following terms of reference:
To examine the economic and financial factors affecting the production and sale of newspapers, magazines and other periodicals in the United Kingdom, including (a) manufacturing, printing, distribution and other costs; (b) efficency of production; and (c) advertising and other revenue, including any revenue derived from interests in television; to consider whether these factors tend to diminish diversity of ownership and control or the number or variety of such publications, having regard to the importance, in the public interest, of the accurate presentation of news and the free expression of opinion; and to report.
I propose to keep the membership of the Royal Commission small. I hope to be able to announce the names of the Chairman and the other members in the near future.
I trust that this approach will commend itself to both sides of the House; and I hope that all those engaged in the industry will do all in their power to assist the Royal Commission in its work.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Prime Minister aware that there will be a general welcome for his decision to appoint a new Royal Commission in addition to referring specific points to the Jenkins and Pilkington Committees? Is he, however, aware that if the Royal Commission takes, as some Royal Commissions do, a very long time to produce its report, further developments and mergers in the industry may take place which will prejudice the whole future situation?
Will the Prime Minister, therefore, first ask the Commission to work as

speedily as possible, and will not he also reconsider the question of whether the parties to the present negotiations should not be invited to hold their hands for the time being? While I appreciate that the Government have no legal power in this matter, they surely have to have regard to the public interest, which is heavily involved. Will not the Prime Minister, therefore, reconsider this point, since, if he does not do so in this instance, a complete monopoly of these magazines may have been achieved long before the Commission has reported?

The Prime Minister: In reply to the first part of the Question, I hope to have a quite small membership and, therefore, that it will be able to operate quickly. I had considered some other form of inquiry, but on examination I think that it is necessary that the status and authority of a Commission under the Royal Warrant should be given, because it gives it power to obtain information that a Departmental or some other committee without those powers would not necessarily have. It is only for that reason that we thought it best to have a Royal Commission, although it is more in the nature of the committee of inquiry of which hon. Members were thinking last week.
With regard to the second point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, those engaged in this must judge for themselves. Frankly, I do not feel inclined to make this appeal, though I see the reason. There is a situation, there will be perhaps a situation after the report of the Commission, and I feel very averse to making appeals which I have no power to impose.

Mr. Mayhew: While the Prime Minister's decision to set up a Royal Commission will be very welcome, should not its terms of reference include, perhaps, a review of the work of the Press Council and the possibility of strengthening it by increasing the lay element and appointing a lay chairman to the Press Council?
Is the Prime Minister aware of the outright opposition of the board of Odhams to the present merger? Is he aware that the merger is now opposed by an enormous weight of public opinion and of opinion on both sides of this House? Is he aware that there are


precedents for the Government giving an opinion that such a thing should not go forward and that there is implied in that the idea of possible retrospective legislation, which makes the matter quite practicable?

The Prime Minister: No doubt, when the Commission is set up, it will certainly consider calling evidence from, or the position of, the Press Council. I hope that hon. Members will feel, when they have had time to read the terms of reference, that they are drawn suitably to the problem that is before us. The problem of monopolies, mergers and take-over bids is being studied by various committees. What we are here worried about is in this field of the printed word, and all that that means in the history of civilisation and liberty. That is why I thought it right to act.
I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that if the Government take the kind of action, whether by threat or appeal, that is suggested, they may make themselves liable for very heavy losses—

Mr. Mitchison: What about the banks?

The Prime Minister: —and all sorts of things that might go wrong in the period supposing that one of these papers comes to an end as a result of my appeal. One has to consider the matter from both angles.
I was asked a question about the banks. There, the Government have powers.

Mr. Pitman: I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to assure the House that within the terms of reference it will be possible to deal with the question of the closed shop and the highly restrictive practices on entry into the printing profession.

The Prime Minister: The terms of reference, I see, include
(a) Manufacturing, printing, distribution and other costs; (b) efficiency of production … 
and I think that all these questions are perfectly relevant to the inquiry that I hope to set up.

Mr. Grimond: While welcoming the decision to set up an inquiry of this sort, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he will arrange in the terms of reference for the Royal Commission to consider, at any rate, whether there is a need for a

permanent body to watch this situation and put before the public any further developments in the industry which may be dangerous in just the way he outlines, that is to say, in blocking out points of view or leading to an undesirable amalgamation of newspapers?

The Prime Minister: I must be quite frank. I distinguish between the general problem which is a very complicated one and into one aspect of which the Jenkins Committee is looking and which if we dealt with it, must be dealt with by the Government on general economic grounds. I think that this inquiry is justified because of the character of the industry. Dealing with the printed word is somewhat different from dealing with an amalgamation or merger of the various forms of buying, selling and manufacture. It is that point I want the Commission to deal with and which justifies dealing with it outside ordinary economic problems which are clearly within the Government's decision whether to legislate on them or not.

Mr. Donnelly: With reference to the present merger, will the Prime Minister ask the Minister of Labour to examine the possibility of the disruption of labour relations that may result in the journalistic profession following the closure of certain magazines and amalgamations that may take place?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour no doubt will be watching this. We are very anxious about those who are earning their living in the industry, writers, journalists, photographers, mechanics and others. It is partly because of this that I think it right that there should be this inquiry which, I think, will very much help them to feel that this problem is being carefully examined.

Mr. K. Robinson: May I thank the Prime Minister for his belated acceptance of the Motion which I moved and which was accepted by the House more than two months ago?
On the question of Press-television links, which is a very important one, may I ask whether there is not some danger of overlapping responsibility between the Royal Commission and the Pilkington Committee? In view of its importance, would it not be better for this matter to


be wholly referred to the Royal Commission?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. This, of course, was one of the points that we had to consider, and we have been in touch with Sir Harry Pilkington and the letter to which I referred has gone to him. The Pilkington Committee on Broadcasting is primarily concerned with the future arrangements governing television and radio in this country when the present system ends. It is for that Committee to consider as a whole how the newspaper industry fits into the picture, if at all. This Royal Commission will be concerned with the economic and financial circumstances of the newspaper industry, and so far as television is concerned its interest will be not the broad question of how television ought or ought not to be carried on but the question of revenue earned and its effect on the industry.

Mr. Lipton: Is the Prime Minister aware that, pending all these various reports that we have been promised, a large number of people still remain very anxious about the dangerous possibilities that may arise between now and then? For example, with the News of the World block coming into the take-over bid field, there is still a risk of an unholy combination of Odham and Gomorrah.

The Prime Minister: I would only say that I am very anxious, and we all are, about the jobs of those concerned, but do not let us forget that it is not merely by merger that unemployment may be created or magazines come to an end. It may be, indeed, that only the greater financial power can keep them alive, so we have to be very careful not to do something which might have the opposite result of what we want.

Mr. Jay: Would the right hon. Gentleman confirm, as would appear to be the case from his statement, that the question of the newsprint industry would be within the terms of reference of the Royal Commission, as most of the supplies of newsprint are in the hands of two concerns and the high price of newsprint is one of the chief causes of the newspaper industry's present difficulties?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Farey-Jones: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this is a matter

of very considerable importance in the division of Watford, where many thousands of people are employed by Odhams and in the printing industry generally? Would he reconsider how any brake could be imposed to prevent any merger taking place prior to the Report of the Royal Commission, in spite of what he has already stated today?

Mr. Paget: When the Prime Minister says that he has not got the power, can he not look behind him and see quite a lot of Members there to give him that power if he asks for it? Does he not know that we would not object? Is not this pure hypocrisy, because in this case all he has to say is that if these people carry on in these circumstances they do so at their own risk, and if the Royal Commission so recommends they will find themselves unscrambled without compensation? The right hon. Gentleman has only to say that; why does he not say it?

The Prime Minister: I think that in the long tradition of the House I should be pardoned for not answering a question so offensively poised—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—"Is not this pure hyprocrisy … "I am not so concerned about the unscrambling as it may affect the financial interests. All I am concerned is about taking an action that might lead to closing and not carrying on and putting a large number of people out of work.

Following is the text of a letter from the President of the Board of Trade to Lord Jenkins, dated 6th February, 1961;
During the discussion in the House of Commons on 31st January, following the Prime Minister's statement about the newspaper and magazine industry, reference was made to the suggestion that in takeover bids a minimum proportion of the consideration offered should be in cash.
We have since been in touch about this and agreed that this suggestion comes within the terms of reference of your Committee on Company Law. I am, further, glad to know that your Committee intend to consider this suggestion and deal with it in their.Report.

Following is the text of a letter from the Postmaster-General to Sir Harry Pilkington, dated 9th February, 1961:
You will have noticed the exchanges in the House of Commons on 31st January about the concentration of ownership of newspapers and other media of communication, and the special attention which the I.T.A. contracts have attracted in this context.


The question of the television contracts has two main aspects. First, there is the possibility that mergers or takeovers may result in significant changes in the effective control of programme companies which are inconsistent with the intention of the I.T.A. in granting the contracts, Secondly, there is the general question of the relationship of the Press to television, including the question whether control over newspapers and television stations should be vested in the same hands. Similar questions might arise with certain patterns of local sound broadcasting.
I am sure that these are matters which your Committee have already noted, and, indeed, the Prime Minister drew the attention of the House on 31st January to the fact that they would fall within the scope of your Committee. He also said that your Committee might well make an interim report on these aspects.
The Prime Minister has now decided to recommend to the Queen that there should be a Royal Commission, which will be small in size, with the following terms of reference:
To examine the economic and financial factors affecting the production and sale of newspapers, magazines and other periodicals in the United Kingdom, including (a) manufacturing, printing, distribution and other costs; (b) efficiency of production; and (c) advertising and other revenue, including any revenue derived from interests in television; to consider whether these factors tend to diminish diversity of ownership and control or the number or variety of such publications, having regard to the importance, in the public interest, of the accurate presentation of news and the free expression of opinion; and to report.
It would, obviously, be a great advantage to the Government if they could have the views of your Committee on the two points I have mentioned above when the Government consider the Report of the Royal Commission. I should be grateful if you would bear this in mind as the work of the two inquiries proceeds.
If it would help I should be happy to discuss the matter with you.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 13TH FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Crown Estate Bill, which it is hoped to obtain by about seven o'clock.
Afterwards, Committee and remaining stages of the White Fish and Herring Industries Bill.
Consideration of the Motion to approve the Eggs (Protection of Guarantees) (Amendment) Order.
TUESDAY, 14TH FEBRUARY—Supply [4th Allotted Day]:
Motion to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair, when a debate will arise on an Amendment to take note of the Reports from the Estimates Committee relating to Admiralty Headquarters Organisation, until about half-past seven o'clock.
Afterwards, a debate on the Reports from the Estimates Committee relating to Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments.
This is the second of the three days to be set apart for the consideration of Reports from the Estimates Committee and the Public Accounts Committee.
WEDNESDAY, 15TH FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the National Health Service Contributions Bill.
THURSDAY, 16TH FEBRUARY—It is proposed to afford an opportunity for a debate on the Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), relating to a Ruling by Mr. Speaker, until seven o'clock.
Afterwards, we shall proceed with a discussion of the Opposition Prayers relating to National Health Service Charges for Prescriptions and Pay-Beds.
FRIDAY, 17TH FEBRUARY—Consideration of Private Members' Motions.
MONDAY, 20TH FEBRUARY—The proposed business will be Supply [5th Allotted Day]:
Committee stage of the Civil Estimates and Estimates for Revenue Departments Vote on Account, 1961–62.
A debate will take place on Fuel and Power.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we cannot properly consider the business for next week, particularly the proposed business for next Wednesday, without taking into account the closing stages of yesterday's business?
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall raise, on a point of order later, a question about our Votes and Proceedings as recorded, with which we do not


agree. Meanwhile, I would like to ask the Leader of the House, who was, I know, not here during those closing stages, hut who was yet very concerned with what happened, whether he has not a statement to make on this matter.

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I have no statement to make, except to say that there will be ample time for consideration of this Measure at its later stages following upon the Second Reading on Wednesday. We have already agreed to take the Committee stage of the Bill on the Floor of the House.
There should be ample time for Members who are sincerely concerned by its provisions to debate it fully on the Floor of the House and not upstairs in Standing Committee. That will certainly be the objective of the Government.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, however, that we are not satisfied that the Ways and Means Resolution was, in fact, carried last night? Is he also aware that, if that is the case, it will not be in order to take the Second Reading of the Bill next Wednesday?
Is he further aware that we consider the conduct of the Government Chief Whip—the Patronage Secretary—in moving the Closure when the Minister had been called upon to speak but had not done so, and when a large number of Members wished to speak, was quite deplorable?
Is he aware that in our opinion the Chairman of Ways and Means was quite wrong in accepting the Closure Motion on that occasion?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition may not say that on this question.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Gaitskell: I have not been asked to withdraw. May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has had discussions with the Chairman of Ways and Means on this matter, and, if so, what the outcome was?

Mr. Butler: The first matter referred to by the right hon. Gentleman is one on which we must search the Journal of the House, and it is a question which, I think, should be addressed to Mr. Speaker.
As for the right hon. Gentleman's question about the Patronage Secretary, I can only say that my right hon. Friend has the Government's support and that I have no more observations to make about him.
The right hon. Gentleman's third point is also one not to be addressed to me. I cannot reply for the Chairman of Ways and Means. This is a matter which must be left to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and his contact with the Chair.
As for the general issue, I am sure that it will be the wish of the House that we should proceed in an orderly manner with our business. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Equally, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to give ample time for the consideration of the Bill, upon which there is great feeling, in its later stages.

Mr. Gaitskell: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes business to proceed in an orderly manner, he must give the Opposition time to voice their criticisms and not attempt to gag us in the way in which we were gagged last night.
May I ask him again, how it was that he was not present on this important occasion? Is he aware that I have sufficient respect for him as Leader of the House to believe that had he been here the Closure would never have been moved? May I ask, once again, what was the outcome of his consultations with the Chairman of Ways and Means?

Mr. Butler: I have no answer to make to the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, because I do not think I can answer for the Chairman of Ways and Means on the Floor of the House.
I am sorry that I was not here. I arrived too late. I have been here on almost every occasion when there has been trouble in the five years that I have been Leader of the House. I shall be happy to be here on every future occasion because, strange to relate. I enjoy it.
Whether the matter could have been handled in any different manner, I do not know, but I do know that if Government business is to be got through there is no better person to help it through than my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary.

Mr. Gaitskell: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, which in our opinion is quite unsatisfactory, I wish to make it plain that we shall have no option but to put down a Motion regarding the conduct of the Chairman of Ways and Means last night.

Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Unless the hon Gentleman's point of order is one that necessarily arises now, it might be more convenient if we got back to questions on business and dealt with these other matters afterwards.

Mr. Pannell: My point does arise now, Mr. Speaker. As I understand the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House to be suggesting that he was not present last night, can we know, through you, whether it was his double standing behind the Chair?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman, who knows so much about our history, is aware that it was a long time ago that this House first 'banished the Speaker from Committees of the whole House. In the circumstances, I am not in a position to answer his question.

Mr. Pannell: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. You misunderstood me. I was not speaking about your double, but about the Leader of the House's double.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman misunderstood me.

Mr. G. Thomas: Has the Leader of the House seen the Motion on leasehold reform in South Wales which stands upon the Order Paper? In view of the extreme urgency for some action to be taken to protect householders from the finance corporations there, will he give time for a debate on this Motion, which has now been signed by more than 70 hon. Members?
[That this House, noting with deep disquiet the cruel exploitation of leaseholders in South Wales by finance corporations and ground landlords who are demanding excessive premiums before renewing leases for a period of 80 years, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to repeal the Act of 1954 dealing with the leasehold system and to introduce a

measure granting to leaseholders the right to purchase their freehold at a fair and reasonable cost.]

Mr. Butler: I will discuss it with my right hon. Friend principally concerned.

Mr. Nabarro: Does my right hon. Friend recall that last Thursday I asked him for a debate on the effects of the Homicide Act, 1957? Since then, there have been two events: a Motion by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) and some of his hon. Friends, which is to be debated next Thursday:
[That this House respectfully regrets and unhesitatingly dissents from the ruling given by Mr. Speaker that a question sought to be put down by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne asking the Secretary of State for the Home Department to order an inquiry into whether a miscarriage of justice had occurred in the case of George Riley was not in order; and expresses the view that this ruling is not in accordance with the precedents and practice of this House and imposes new, unnecessary and undesirable limitations on the ability of hon. Members to discharge their public duties.]
and a further Motion by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Gardner) and others of my hon. Friends:
[That this House is of the opinion that the Barry Committee should immediately be asked to consider the value of the death penalty in preventing murder and protecting society, with a view to the repeal or amendment of section five of the Homicide Act, 1957.]
Could my right hon. Friend give an assurance that next Thursday's debate, which is on a procedural matter most largely, will not prejudice in any way the earnest consideration that he has undertaken to give at an early date to a debate on the effects of the Homicide Act?

Mr. Butler: We must keep Thursday's debate to the procedural question which is involved in the Motion in the name of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), but that does not prejudice, in any way, the serious issues to which reference was made last week, and which have been repeated by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) this week.

Mr. V. Yates: May I ask a question about next Thursday's business, which is to begin with a debate on the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman)? As the right hon. Gentleman has told us that he is now anxious, especially after last night's proceedings, that we shall have adequate time, does he really consider that a debate timed to take from four o'clock to seven o'clock is adequate on a matter which affects every hon. Member of this House, who may have been, as I have, in the same position as my hon. Friend—precluded from having the right to bring information to this House which might have an effect on the life of an individual?

Mr. Butler: We have seriously considered this matter. We put it down as the first Order of the Day and thought that that was a suitable time to give hon. Members an opportunity of airing this important question if they wish to do so.

Mr. Gardner: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the substantial and strong conviction in this House that the present law, which distinguishes quite artificially and arbitrarily between capital and noncapital murder, is indefensible and that the majority of people in the country are completely out of patience with that part of the law? Will not he agree that there is a need for an inquiry into the value of the death penalty?

Mr. Speaker: This is the time for questions on business.

Mr. Gardner: May I refer my right hon. Friend to Motion No. 52 on the Order Paper mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) just now and ask him whether he will give time for a debate?

Mr. Butler: I cannot answer a question on merit at business time, but I have already said that if there is an opportunity there will be a debate. With the press of business before us, I cannot see that there will be such an opportunity in the immediate future.

Mr. S. Silverman: While gratefully acknowledging the right hon. Gentleman's co-operation in finding time next Thursday for the Motion in my name, and expressing my own opinion, for

what it is worth, that it might be adequately discussed in the time allotted by him to it, may I draw his attention to the fact that there is another Motion on the Order Paper, and has been for a long time? Whereas the Motion on Thursday, in form only, is a Motion of censure on Mr. Speaker, the Motion of censure on the right hon. Gentleman is not a matter of form, but a matter of substance.
Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that every new decision he makes and leaves unexplained increases the anxiety and distress in the country about this whole matter? Will he not treat the Motion of censure on himself at least as seriously as he has treated that on Mr. Speaker?
[That this House places on record its profound regret that the Secretary of State for the Home Department failed to advise Her Majesty the Queen to exercise Her Royal Prerogative of mercy in the cases of Francis Forsyth and Norman Harris, the first of whom was only a month or two over eighteen years of age and the other twenty-three years of age, both of whom were said by the learned counsel who prosecuted them to have had no intention to kill, and one of whom, namely, Norman Harris, was admitted to have struck no blow and was not present when any fatal act of violence was committed.]

Mr. Butler: I have said that we will have difficulty in finding time for the hon. Gentleman's second Motion. We certainly must take the Motion relating to Mr. Speaker at the earliest possible opportunity. I think that we had better do one thing at a time.

Mr. Jay: Would the Leader of the House agree that the business of next week is more likely to be conducted in accordance with the established rules and traditions of the House if the Government would appoint a new Chief Whip?

Mr. Butler: The answer to that is "No, Sir".

Mr. W. Hamilton: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what has been the result of his discussions with the Secretary of State for Scotland concerning a separate Health Service debate in the Scottish Grand Committee, where we could have a nice, quiet, pleasant morning?
I am not sure whether my next point comes into business. It relates to something that occurred last night: and is likely to occur again tonight. At the end of proceedings this morning, at a rather interesting point, several hon. Members retired to the Tea Room for refreshment—not having taken any since about eight o'clock in the evening—and, after a quarter of an hour, discovered that the place was closed, to the distress of many hon. Members who were here until four or five o'clock this morning. Can the right hon. Gentleman make representations in the appropriate quarter to see that this situation is remedied?

Mr. Butler: I will certainly have to see that the latter situation is dealt with by those primarily responsible. I will make it my duty to pass on the hon Member's trouble. It is lucky that we did not sit any later, or it might have been worse.
The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is that I have had an amicable conversation with my right hon. Friend, but that, so far, I have not been able to wring from him the concession which the hon. Member desires. Perhaps he would keep in touch with me.

Mr. Stonehouse: May I ask the Leader of the House whether, in view of the importance of these questions and the need to consult the opinion of the House, he can arrange a debate on the issues to be raised at the forthcoming Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference?

Mr. Butler: I will discuss that with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

DIVISION NO. 40 (CORRECTION)

Mr. L. M. Lever: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to call your attention, and that of the House, to the fact that my name was omitted from the published list of those hon. Members who voted last night in favour of the Motion deploring the statement of the Minister of Health about the National Health Service. I voted in that Division in favour of the Motion and I hope that my name will now be included.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry that the hon. Member's name was omitted. A correction shall be made. I am obliged to him for mentioning the matter.

VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS, 9th FEBRUARY, 1961

Mr. Gaitskell: On a point of Order. I wish to question part of the record of our business last night which is set out under Votes and Proceedings, page 193. No. 49, under the heading "Thursday, 9th February, 1961."
I do not question the first paragraph in this record regarding the Motion moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), the part relating to the Closure Motion moved by the Patronage Secretary, nor the part which deads with the putting of the Closure Motion 'by the Chairman of Ways and Means. It certainly is the case that he put that Motion. We heard him put it and he took the voices of the Committee. However, I do question the record from there onwards.
I have consulted a large number of my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have not found a single one that heard the Chairman put the main Question, the Ways and Means Resolution itself. I have not heard a single hon. Member say that he collected the voices on either of the two occasions on which he is required to do so. We are bound to be guided by the evidence of our own ears. We do not believe that his Question was ever put and, even supposing the Chairman did put it in a low voice—muttering, so to speak, to those around him—we regard it, frankly, as an abuse of the proceedings of the House.
It is surely necessary that the Question be put in a manner that it can be heard and so that the voices can be properly collected. We are, therefore, bound to challenge the whole record as being incorrect. In our opinion the Ways and Means Resolution was never put correctly and, therefore, never carried.

Mr. Warbey: I gave notice that I wished to raise the same point and, also, a related one, Mr. Speaker. I wish only to say that it is within the recollection of hon. Members in these benches that, as far as we were concerned, we heard nothing of the Chairman of the Committee


putting the Question or collecting the voices.
I wish, also, to raise the accuracy of the record in paragraph 12 in Votes and Proceedings on page 194, where it says:
Adjournment,—Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.
Grave disorder having arisen in the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 24….
I wish to convey my own impression, and, I believe, that of many right hon. and hon. Members, that that is not what actually happened. I am, moreover, fortified in this by the typescript of the OFFICIAL REPORT that has been placed in the Library. According to the OFFICIAL REPORT, the Motion for the Adjournment was made at 1.15 a.m. and about 1.20 a.m. my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) was speaking and said:
I persist in claiming my right to move that you send for Mr. Speaker and do not purport to carry the House on some private conversation of your own that you have—[Interruption.]

DEPUTY-SPEAKER: NO such Motion is in order and I declare the House adjourned.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past One o'clock."
That was six minutes after the Motion for the Adjournment was proposed.
There is no reference in the OFFICIAL REPORT to Mr. Deputy-Speaker adjourning the House because of grave disorder. While I would freely admit that, owing to the disgraceful behaviour of the Patronage Secretary, there may have been a certain degree of turbulence, nevertheless I submit, first, that there was no grave disorder and, secondly, even if there was, Mr. Deputy-Speaker did not, in fact, use that as the reason for adjourning the House.
Therefore, in saying, at 1.21 a.m., six minutes after the Question was proposed, that the House was adjourned, and in leaving the Chair and calling upon the Serjeant at Arms to remove the Mace. he was depriving hon. Members—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is out of order at that point. That is what he cannot say on rising to a point of order. I understand what he is saying. He disputes the proposition that the House was adjourned pursuant to Standing Order No. 24.

Mr. Warbey: Yes, Sir. I wish to say that it could have been adjourned only pursuant to Standing Order No. 1 (6), under which hon. Members on their feet at the time, and seeking to catch the eye of Mr. Deputy-Speaker, were entitled to raise any matter suitable to the Adjournment Motion and were entitled to go on speaking for another 24 minutes, and were deprived of that right by the action of Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Sir Richard Pilkington: Is it not a fact that if the Opposition had behaved themselves and not made such an appalling noise, this matter would not have arisen?

Mr. S. Silverman: May I submit a further point to you, Mr. Speaker, in connection with the same matter and which might conveniently be considered with the others which have been put to you?
I do not think that anybody who was here last night would deny that there was considerable turbulence and that it might very well have amounted, in the opinion of the Chair, whatever might have been its cause, to grave disorder. But that grave disorder, if there was grave disorder, did not arise at the point that the official record says. If there was grave disorder at all, it happened long earlier than that, and if it were the case, as it may well have been, that the fact that certain Questions put by the Chair were not heard, and if it were the fact, as is suggested, that that was due to too much noise being created, perhaps on this side of the House, it would have been quite wrong to attempt to force through the business of the House in those circumstances.
The right thing to have done would have been to suspend the sitting at that point and not at the point where the official record wrongly says that it was through grave disorder.

Mr. Speaker: I should explain that the point which can be taken with me is that the official record is wrong, but what cannot be done on this occasion is to criticise the Chairman of Ways and Means.
I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and other hon. Members for raising this matter with me. Long ago, when the


House banished the Speaker from Committees of the whole House, it did not confer upon him any appellate jurisdiction, as it were, in relation to what happened in Committee. I do not officially know what happened in Committee, for I was not there and I could not know. My official guide, as I understand it, is not something which appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT, but is, in fact, the Minutes drawn up by the Clerks. I have a duty to the House to compare the Votes and Proceedings, before they are printed, with those Minutes and I have to satisfy myself that they correspond at that point.
I do not think that I have any power to do anything myself as Speaker to amend the Minutes as opposed to the Votes and Proceedings or to cause any correction in them. So far as I know at present, I must be guided by what the Minutes report. I am bound so to take them. I was not here and I cannot act as a court of appeal about it.
I then asked myself what it was that the right hon. Gentleman and others had to do if they wished, in the time available, to take the point that this purported Resolution as a nullity. After examining the position, I believe that their right and only course, as I cannot be a court of appeal in the matter, is to vote against the proposition that the House agrees with the Committee in the Resolution when it be reported. I cannot find any other remedy for them and that, I believe, is the right course.
The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) will appreciate that I cannot judge—I have no knowledge of what happened at that moment—but on the face of it it looks as though it would be a misinterpretation of the Standing Order mentioned to suppose that it required any recital by the Chair that in the mind of the Chair there existed a given degree of disorder.
After saying all that, I hope that the House will forgive me if in its service I say one word more; that is to be allowed to express my extreme personal distress at hearing what the right hon. Gentleman and others had to put to me. It has long been a rule, accepted by all of us and our predecessors, that when the Chair addresses the House, or rises to address the House, whether to put a Question or otherwise, it is the duty of

all hon. Members to sit down if they are standing and to maintain silence.
It is very important that everyone who has a mind to this House, and who loves it and respects it and our way of Parliamentary democracy, should remember that it must be in the general interest to uphold the Chair and always to see that that rule is followed. If not, if they were so minded, just by shouting, hon. Members could obviously frustrate the business of the House altogether. I am not saying that anybody did that. I am saying that the circumstances described distressed me, because I cannot believe that silence was kept when the Chair rose to put Questions.

Mr. Gaitskell: With very great respect, I appreciate the difficult position in which you find yourself, Mr. Speaker. You were not here last night and you do not know what took place. If I say that we do not entirely agree with some of your remarks at the end of your statement, it is solely because we think that you are not aware of what exactly happened. I will not pursue that matter further, because, otherwise, I should be trespassing on the question of the Chairman's conduct, about which I have already given notice that we shall put down a Motion.
On the other point, it seems that we are also in great difficulty. You have advised us that our only remedy when we think that the Journal is wrong and that the Minutes are wrong is simply to vote against the Ways and Means Resolution on Report. I do not doubt that We should have done that anyhow, so it is not a remedy. It is not a remedy for a situation in which we believe that the Ways and Means Resolution was never carried in Committee. It certainly is a most extraordinary position that it should not be open for any hon. Member, apparently, to challenge the Minutes with any hope of getting any satisfaction.
I must ask you to look at the matter again. It carries very grave implications because, if it can appear that Resolutions and Motions have been carried when they have not been carried and if it can be so recorded and if that is just taken as something final, that strikes at the root of our Parliamentary system.

Mr. Speaker: Of course, I will look at it further. I may have mis-stated it in


the sense that I myself, mero motu, can do nothing to assist the right hon. Gentleman in this case.
As to other methods, I suppose that the right hon. Gentleman can censure the Minute keeper for keeping inaccurate Minutes and decide, on another Motion of censure, what did happen, in fact, and whether the Minutes were accurate or not. But apart from remedies in the form of a substantive Motion, I have not been able to invent any machinery to assist the right hon. Gentleman. I had asked, because, obviously, it is desirable that there should be some in these circumstances. That is all I have been able to find that I myself could do. No doubt the House could find a method by substantive Motion to challenge the Minutes. That is as far as I can think of at the moment to help.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I understand the Leader of the House announced that tonight we are to take the Report stage of the Ways and Means Resolution. May I ask whether it is possible for the House to consider whether it accepts the record as a true record of what took place before we are asked to consider the Report stage of the Resolution which, in our opinion, was not carried by the Committee?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot help much about that because, by Standing Order. the Question on Report is not debatable, as the right hon. Gentleman knows.

Mr. Griffiths: I understand that, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, the position will be that formally in the House this evening the Report stage will be taken although we say that the Report stage has not been reached because the Resolution has not been carried through the Committee.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman will understand that the only answer I can make to that is that all that someone in the frame of mind the right hon. Gentleman indicates can do is to vote "No" to the proposition and say that he does not agree with it.

Mr. G. Brown: Mr. Speaker, I heard what you said about your view of the attitude of those who should respect and love this House. With respect, I take second place to no one in that sentiment. I hold it now, and I held it last night.
This is our problem. If a Motion is validly reported out of Committee to this House, we are free to vote for or against it on its merits on the Report stage. What do We do, though, if we think that it is not validly reported out of Committee? We have two things here. First, we have the opposition we would normally have had to it on Report. Secondly, we have the opposition to its procedurally coming before us quite invalidly.
I heard you say that you could not believe that, had we shown proper respect to the Chair when the Chair was standing up and addressing the House, we could be in this difficulty. I hope that you will accept it from me in the same sense, the same spirit, and the same seriousness, that our problem was that it was impossible to know when the Chair neither stood nor made any coherent remark to us.

Mr. Speaker: I accept entirely the sincerity and sentiment of the right hon. Gentleman. I rose because he passed into a criticism of an occupant of the Chair, which he is not allowed to do on this point. I said some words to that effect. What I find it difficult to believe—and, of course, I was not there and am not entitled to comment on the matter when I was not present—is that if hon. Members kept silent when the Chair rose to its feet to say something they would not have heard what was said.

Mr. Brown: Had you not said that you found it impossible to believe, I would not have been led into—I did not want to be led into—trespassing on a ground we can discuss only on another Motion, but this I must say in our defence. Had you been here, it was so obvious that you could not but have believed it. I will leave it there, except to press you that you will cause somebody to inquire into the remedy for what is to us an obvious defect. It is not that we want to vote against this Resolution on Report because of what happened last night. We might or might not want to do that, but that is an entirely different thing.
We feel that this Resolution was not, in fact, validly reported out of Committee last night. Two votes recorded as having been taken were, to our


certain belief, never put. The voices, to our belief, were never collected.

Mr. Speaker: I have the point, as I am sure everybody has, of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown). What we must not do is to trespass into a matter of criticism of the Chairman of Ways and Means on this point of order. That I cannot allow.

Mr. Ede: Mr. Speaker, I gather from your reply to the first speech of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that this great House is in a worse position than a parish meeting of the smallest rural parish in this country if we cannot confirm or dispute the drafting of the Minutes of our previous proceedings. That is the point about which I think we are concerned. I would not in any way question the Ruling you have given on the matter, but I suggest that if that is the case it is high time that the rules and procedure relating to this were altered.

Mr. Paget: One has to realise that, on your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, if there were a mere clerical error in the record—and that could quite easily occur because often a Second Reading comes immediately after the Financial Resolution—and some time after it was found that what we had done was invalid because of a clerical error in the record, apparently it would be uncorrectable.
In my submission that really cannot be so. What ought to happen is that there ought to be a Motion for the House to go back into Committee, and the Committee should then consider, as the Minutes are challenged, whether those Minutes ought to be corrected. That seems to be the way in which we ought to deal with them.

Mr. Speaker: I confess that I shall have to look at that suggestion, if and when a Motion of the kind is submitted, to see whether it is in order. I did not say either that the Votes and Proceedings could not be amended; merely that it could not be amended by me in relation to a Committee. That is the point.

Mr. G. Brown: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. This, I gather, gets reported out of Committee to us tonight as part of our usual business for this day.
Is there any way in which a Motion might be submitted, leaving out what would happen to it to recommit this Resolution to the Committee? Is it open to us now to submit such a Motion at this stage of the day and make it effective?

Mr. Speaker: As at present advised I do not think so, but if anybody likes to submit a Motion in that form I will look at it. It looks as though the Standing Order is clear. It would appear, on looking at Standing Order No. 86 (2), that that is an impossibility.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is there not a precedent for all this, Sir? It is not a very respectable one, and not one that I want to follow myself. When a Stuart King disagreed with something in the Journal, he tore the page out. Would not that be the best way of dealing with this, so that we can get back to the position which existed before?

Mr. Mitchison: On page 268 of Erskine May there is this entry:
On 16 May 1833, a motion was made by Mr. Cobbett, impugning the conduct of Sir Robert Peel. Lord Althorp moved 'That the resolution which has been moved be not entered in the minutes', but the Speaker put the question thus, 'That the proceedings be expunged' on the ground that the minutes had already been entered in the Clerk's book.
With respect, Sir, is that not a case in which Mr. Speaker exercised a power to correct the Minutes?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that that is quite right, with respect to the hon. and learned Member. I will look at this point again, but the fact is that these are Minutes taken in Committee of the whole House, where I am not present.

Mr. Gaitskell: I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for saying that you will look at this matter again. I would particularly draw your attention to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), in regard to the very unsatisfactory position of the House of Commons when it cannot even correct its own Minutes. I hope that you will consider the possibility of a Motion to correct the Minutes being laid, as well as the other suggestions that have been made.
We are still in some difficulty, because on the Order Paper for tonight is the Report stage of the Committee Resolution. I therefore ask the Leader of the


House, in view of the situation which has arisen, whether he will agree to withdraw that Motion from today's business. There is no need for it to be carried today; it does not affect tomorrow's business at all. That would give you time to consider this matter further, Sir, and it would also give us time, in the light of whatever decision you may give, to decide upon our own course of action.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I should have to consider that proposal, because we want to bring in the Bill, and we cannot give notice to bring it in until we have the Report stage of the Ways and Means Resolution. If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to consider his request, I will see what can be done about it.

Mr. Oram: I wish to revert to the opinion which you expressed earlier, Mr. Speaker, that in your view the Chair was under no obligation to give a recital of the reasons for suspending the Sitting of the House if it was being done under Standing Order No. 24. I submit that there is a precedent in this matter, in that your predecessor, when suspending the Sitting of the House on the occasion of the Suez orisis, did two things. First, he gave the House very adequate warning that he would take action under that Standing Order and, secondly, when he took that action he made it clear that he was doing so in that way. When you consider these matters, will you take (that into account as well?

Mr. Speaker: I shall not consider that. In view of the notice given in regard to a Motion of censure perhaps we had better not pursue that point now; it is

a matter which may arise on the Motion of censure.

Mr. G. Brown: May I take further the exchange between my right hon. Friend and the Leader of the House, when the Leader of the House agreed to think over the implications of my right hon. Friend's request? We are not unwilling to provide the right hon. Gentleman with time to consider the matter, but I would ask him whether we can expect to have a statement from him at some time during the late afternoon, so that we would still know in advance of ten o'clock what his intentions were. The Bill is not down for Second Reading until Wednesday, according to the business as he announced it. Is there not quite a little time between now and then?

Mr. Butler: I know how difficult it is to interrupt business, because I have often tried before and the Chair has found it difficult to permit me to do so. The correct time for me to do so is when we come to the Ways and Means Resolution, when I could make a statement. The House must realise that I shall consider this matter very seriously. The only sacrifice I would ask of hon. Members, if we put this matter off, is that since we cannot take it on Friday it will have to be put off until Monday—which will give Mr. Speaker a further opportunity for the researches which he requires—in which case I would ask hon. Members to realise that they may have less notice of the Second Reading of the Bill, which is a short one.
I would, therefore, ask them to make that sacrifice, so that I may give this matter consideration in the favourable light that I have indicated. I could notify the House when we come to the Resolution. I do not think that that would be a hardship to the House.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.34 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The purpose of the Bill is to bring up to date the charges for dentures and spectacle lenses. At the same time the opportunity has been taken to provide for further exemption from charges in respect of priority classes. Since 1951, when charges were introduced, the costs of these appliances have increased, and thus the contributions which users pay have represented a diminishing proportion of the cost. The present proposals restore the position. The increases bring the contributions up, to the nearest round figure, to the corresponding proportionate amount of the total cost charged in 1951, although there have been some concessions, as I have already indicated.
Ever since 1951 the aim has been to give the first priority in the dental services to the conservation of teeth, especially those of children and adolescents. Dental fitness for the nation is best secured through the proper dental health of the younger generation. In the case of adults an additional aim has been to give priority to conservation treatment over extraction and the provision of dentures. The result has been very much as desired, and we may properly conclude that the arrangements for charges played a significant part in producing this result, of emphasis on conserving one's own teeth.
The introduction of charges for dental treatment in 1952 did not cause any drop in the number of courses of treatment provided. I have brought with me figures showing the total number of courses of treatment over the years, but as we have already lost so much time the House will probably not want me to weary it by referring to those figures in detail. By contrast with dentures, where the number dropped sharply after 1951 and has since risen again to only slightly above the 1952 figure, the amount of

conservation work has increased steadily, and is now almost double what it was in 1951. More important, this increase contains a much bigger increase in the number of courses of treatment provided for children and adolescents. The annual number of such courses has risen over threefold since 1951, and the House may be interested to know that the figures for England and Wales have increased from about 1½ million to about 5 million.
The increased charges now proposed for dentures, combined with the decision not to increase the charges for treatment, should assist in maintaining this change of emphasis in the general dental service. As to the priority classes for dentures, in our consideration of the exemptions we felt that we should take the opportunity of removing an anomaly. At present, the priority classes have to pay statutory charges if they obtain their dentures as out-patients at a hospital or through the general dental service, but not if they obtain them through the local authority dental service.
We took into account three reasons for suggesting a change. As hon. Members will be aware, local authorities have a duty to provide free dental services for expectant and nursing mothers, children under school age and children attending schools maintained by them. For one reason or another—either because a person chooses to go to a general dental practitioner, or because of the shortage of local authority dentists—some members of the priority classes have to pay a charge while others obtain the service free through the local authority.
The present proposals remove another anomaly in that they will provide for free orthodontic appliances with teeth through the general dental service. They have been available through the local authority service, but not if people use the dental practitioner service. All these proposals may well result in less denture work for the local authority.
Parents will not have to reflect that if they go to the local authority clinic, service will be free whereas if they go to the dental practitioner they will have to pay, and with that consideration removed we hope that it will provide additional capacity at the local clinics for conservation work. Although the increased cost of this proposal is relatively modest—in fact, it is £100,000—I think


that it is satisfactory that at a comparatively small cost we are able to remove the anomaly which I have just described to the House.
On spectacles, the increases are again proportionate, as I have explained in connection with the dental appliances. On bifocals, as hon. Members will have noticed, the increase is larger than for ordinary spectacle lenses. This also is to remove an anomaly. The lenses for bifocals and multifocals, of course, cost more than ordinary lenses, and so the person who has a pair of bifocals virtually gains two pairs of glasses, but he only has to pay the charges for one. In the normal way, if people wanted glasses for both reading and long distance, short of having bifocals they would have to pay the charges for two pairs of lenses and two pairs of frames. It seems unfair to the individual who buys two pairs of glasses that the person who obtains one. pair of bifocals should not pay his proper contribution.
The Standing Ophthalmic Advisory Committee of the Central Health Services Council recently reviewed the frames available under the service. It was impressed by the evidence that metal frames were no longer acceptable by older children, with the result that they incur charges for lenses as well as frames because they do not take the spectacles available to them under the service. The Committee advised changes, but recommended no change for younger children because it was still satisfied that up to the age of 9 metal frames are satisfactory in appearance and in wear and have advantages in fitting.
The Bill essentially implements the advice of the Committee though in a broader way. The Committee's recommendation was for the addition of two more frames at varying ages, but the charge for the frame will still be payable, which is reasonable because this question of choice is really an aesthetic matter rather than one necessitated on clinical grounds.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: Does the hon. Lady really think that this question of choice is an æ sthetic matter? Does she not know that, particularly with children's spectacles, it is very desirable to allow the child to wear a frame which she wants

to wear, because if she does not want to wear it she will not wear the glasses. It is not a question of aesthetic taste at all.

Miss Pitt: That is the point I am trying to make, that it is the choice of the child on personal or aesthetic grounds rather than a matter of accepting the frames which are available and which adequately serve the purpose. The hon. Gentleman has really put into words the point which I was trying to make.

Mrs. Harriet Slater: My hon. Friend's point is that if a child needs glasses it is vitally essential that the child should be given every encouragement to wear them so that its sight might be corrected. Therefore, it is better that the child should not be put off by an ugly-looking frame.

Miss Pitt: That is exactly what we propose to do.
The charge for the most popular frames is 10s. 8d., or 11s. 8d. I think that hon. Members know that frames can be reused for changes of prescription, when no charge is made.

Mrs. Alice Cullen: Will not the hon. Lady abolish steel frames, for no child wants them?

Miss Pitt: We are advised by the expert committee that steel frames are suitable for children up to the age of nine. We are prepared to accept that, above that age, there may be objections, and I will say a further word about those in a moment.
If children have private frames they will continue to pay the same charges as adults for lenses. The category of children to whom this concession will apply will be those aged from 10 to 15 or over the age of 15 while attending school full-time. The cost of exemptions in this category will be £170,000.
I now turn to the main proposals of the Bill. Clause 1 (1) increases the charges for dental appliances supplied through the general dental service or to out-patients through the hospital and specialist services by 5s. in each case for a single denture, by 15s. for more than one denture, from £4 5s. to £5, and the maximum charge for general dental services, which include the provision of dentures, is similarly increased by 15s.—from £4 5s. to £5.
Subsection (2) increases the charge for spectacle lenses from 10s. to 12s. 6d. per lens or to £1 per lens for bifocal or multifocal lenses. The provisions of the 1951 Act concerning charges for spectacle frames and exemption of children's glasses from charges for lenses or frames remain unchanged. Glasses supplied to hospital in-patients also remain exempt from any charge.
Subsection (3) amends the 1951 Act by exempting from charges for dentures children under 16 or who are attending full-time at school—within the meaning of the Education Acts—or nursing and expectant mothers. Subsection (4) implements the proposal to exempt from charges spectacle lenses supplied to children aged 10 to 15 or aged 16 or more while attending full-time at school, again defined by reference to the Education Acts, where lenses are fitted to any National Health Service type of frame.
This Clause also gives regulation-making power to my right hon. Friends the Minister of Health in England and Wales and the Secretary of State in Scotland to prescribe the method of certification of the conditions satisfied in order to qualify for the exemptions which I have been outlining. The regulations so made will be subject to the negative Resolution procedure of the House.
Clause 2 enables Ministers to vary by regulations the amount of, or to abolish, any charge authorised by the 1951 Act for any dental or optical appliance, or to vary the descriptions of dental or optical appliances for the purpose of charges, or to vary the amount of, or abolish, any of the charges authorised for dental treatment by the 1952 Act. Regulations made under this Clause are to be Statutory Instruments and subject to annulment by a Resolution of either House. The other charges are on the basis that they may be varied up or down. Even prescriptions are on that basis. Therefore, the proposal in the present Bill would bring everything into line.
I should like to explain—though I think that most hon. Members will know it—that arrangements already exist for the refund of charges where these would cause hardship. The National Assistance Board refunds in full, without further inquiry, the amount of charges for dental treatment, dentures and glasses where

these have to be paid by persons already in receipt of a weekly assistance allowance. Anyone not already receiving a weekly assistance allowance, to whom the payment of these charges would cause hardship by the standards of the National Assistance Board's regulations, will be repaid the amount of the charge, either in whole or in part.
In deciding whether any payment can be made, the National Assistance Board makes a liberal allowance for expenses in connection with employment. The Board's procedure is very well tried, as hon. Members know, and I think it is fairly well understood in the country. I feel that the House would like to hear some of the latest figures of the amount of assistance in respect of dentures and spectacles. Last year, for Great Britain, optical charges cost £651,000, which represented 373,000 cases, and for dentures and dental treatment the cost was £387,000, which represented 114,000 cases.
During recent years there has been a steady improvement in the number of dentists taking part in the National Health Service. At the same time, there has been a substantial increase in the courses of treatment as I have indicated, especially conservation treatment. Regarding spectacles, again there has been an increase in the number of sight tests and spectacles supplied. There is, of course, a discrepancy between the two figures, but the number of spectacles supplied represents about 43 per cent. over the past nine years.
The proposal which I have outlined to the House, I hope clearly, is to increase charges for dental appliances and spectacle lenses and there will be a further exemption for the priority classes. In short, these proposals do no more than bring into line the charges for the Service which have already been in operation so that they bear the appropriate proportion of the cost which they did when first imposed, and I hope that the House will be prepared to give the Bill a Second Reading.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson: The Parliamentary Secretary has moved the Second Reading of the Bill in tones calculated to minimise its impact on our people which, of course, is entirely on a pattern with what the


Minister of Health has been doing about these increases ever since they were introduced.
Whatever may be the outcome in other respects of the incidents in the early hour of this morning, I should like to express the hope that at least they have conveyed to the right hon. Gentleman the depth of our indignation and feeling about the measures that he is taking—an indignation and resentment which, we believe, is shared by the vast majority of the people.
The Bill imposes additional charges of just over £ 2½ million in a full year. ft is, of course, a part of a much larger operation which we were discussing in broader terms yesterday. But we have not yet received from the Minister—certainly, the hon. Lady did not turn her attention at all to them today—any answer to the repeated questions we have asked about why, for instance, in these so-called affluent days, we cannot afford an expanding National Health Service. We have had no answer to why we have had to cut back, in one way or another, when we are today spending no more—on certain calculations we are spending still less—than we were spending on this Service in 1951.
It is quite clear what are the answers. There are two reasons for the decision to impose these charges and increase contributions. The first is an arbitrary decision by the right hon. Gentleman—no doubt in collusion with the Chancellor—to limit the Exchequer contribution to this Service. The second stems from the doctrinaire hatred on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite to the whole idea of the Welfare State. We have only to contrast the way in which that phrase is uttered by hon. Members on this side of the House and by hon. Members opposite. We speak of the Welfare State with pride. Hon. Members opposite utter the words with a faint but perfectly susceptible sneer.
Yesterday, when talking about these charges, the Minister said it was a question of adjusting the financing of the Service, and in answer to our charges he said that the result would be not that the Service would be undermined, but that it would be underpinned. I think that that phrase reveals the right hon. Gentleman's total lack of comprehension

about, at any rate what we understand, and what the overwhelming majority of people understand, by the term "National Health Service". If one really says that imposing charges in this way is underpinning the Service, where do we stop? If it be a good thing for the Service—because that is what underpinning is—to impose charges on the patient, clearly it is desirable to continue and expand the process; and that is what I believe we shall see happen in the years to come.
I should have thought that the Conservative attitude to the Welfare State ought by now to be crystal clear. It is an attitude of lip-service during election time and of steady erosion between elections. Conservatives tell us that the people must be made to pay for what they get, or else they will not appreciate it. They must be made to stand on their own feet. These are the kind of catch phrases which we so often hear falling from the lips of hon. Members opposite.
Now we have the Bow Group and the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) advocating fees in State schools—again, all part of the same pattern. Of course, as they say, they would exempt the very indigent people—provided that these people adopted a suitably humble attitude to the charity of the Government. I have heard it called a safety net to catch these very indigent people, but it is a safety net in which the right hon. Gentleman is not averse to snipping one or two holes even in respect of these unfortunate people.
We have never accepted that the Minister was faced with the alternative of cutting back the Service or imposing charges. I wish to make absolutely clear that, of course, we are in no way opposed—indeed, we welcome—the expansion of the hospital programme. We should like to see it further accelerated, because it has been delayed all too long. But for a moment, since this is one of the Minister's arguments for these charges, let us look at the position a little more closely.
It was the Minister's predecessor, the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), who increased the hospital capital programme by, I think, about £5 million to about £31 million in the current year,


and, at the same time, he announced that it was going up another £5 million to £36 million in 1961–62. All that the present Minister was able to announce a week or two ago at his Press conference—and this I am sure was the thin sugar coating for the intensely bitter pill which was to come a week or two later—was merely the continuing increase of the hospital buiding programme at the same rate, rising to £50 million in 1965.
It is a strange coincidence that this figure of £50 million happens to be exactly the figure that was included in the Labour Party's election programme as a desirable objective as soon as it could possibly be attained. If hon. Members opposite would take a little time off and read the document called "Members One of Another", the Labour Party's election programme on health, they would understand a little more our attitude to this Service. They would find that we put forward this precise proposal as an immediate objective, an annual capital development programme of £50 million for the hospitals.
I thought that there was just a possibility when the right hon. Gentleman took on the office of Minister of Health, and became responsible for what I, at any rate, think is probably the greatest single social service in the world, that he might have shed some of his previous attitudes and been—I think that I can use the word—inspired to defend this Service against the Chancellor and against the Cabinet, because, after all, in a sense, perhaps in a limited sense, that is rather what happened to the right hon. Gentleman who is now Secretary of State for the Colonies. He had been as bitter a critic of the Welfare State as the right hon. Gentleman. They seemed to me in those days to share very similar views and they certainly shared the authorship of many pamphlets.
The same sort of fears were expressed when the right hon. Gentleman the present Colonial Secretary took over, but it so happens that he did not impose any new charges on the patient during nearly four years he was in office. He took over just before the Royal Assent was given to the Bill which his predecessor, now Viscount Crookshank, had introduced. Nevertheless, he himself did not introduce charges and I

think that he defended the Service against the Treasury to some extent. Clearly, the right hon. Gentleman the present Minister has decided not to take that course. He is, perhaps, of a more granite disposition and he is not changing his views.
The right hon. Gentleman has decided to impose these fresh charges for what I think are the flimsiest of reasons, even by his own standards. I shall read to the House what The Times said in its leading article on Thursday of last week, the day after he made his announcement:
None of the additional charges promises any conspicuous improvement in either the financial efficiency of the service or of the standards of medical and dental care. The operation is largely a matter of book-keeping intended not so much to restrain the cost of the National Health Service as to restrain the annual increase in the amount borne by the Exchequer. The political incentive for the action is obvious.
As I have said in my opening remarks, the Minister has been trying to minimise the effect of these charges on the patient and to pretend that they are something rather derisory. In his speech yesterday I think that he called the dental charges "tiny and negligible".

The Minister of Health (Mr. Enoch Powell): Will the hon. Member give the context?

Mr. Robinson: It is conceivable that he was not talking about the increase in dental charges, but he certainly used the phrase "tiny and negligible". I shall give him the context in a moment. Apparently he regards dentures for the toothless and spectacles for those whose sight is going as something inessential. On the B.B.C. Home Service last week the Minister ended an interview with the following rather extraordinary statement:
Everything in this Service which is of essential importance is and remains absolutely free.
That is a misleading statement even for a Minister of this Government—and their standards of misleading the public are rather extreme.

Mr. Powell: I can supply the context for the words. I said, as reported in col. 439 of HANSARD for yesterday:
…. are tiny and negligible in comparison with the increase in all kinds of benefits and


earnings since those charges were fixed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 8th Feb.. 1961; Vol. 634, c. 439.]

Mr. Robinson: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has given the context. I leave it to the House to judge whether I misrepresented his attitude to these charges in any way.
Perhaps I might now come in more detail to the actual proposals of the Bill. I take first, the denture charges. I should remind the House of what the Guillebaud Committee said about charges for dentures. We must not forget that that was the Committee set up by the present Colonial Secretary when he held the position of the right hon. Gentleman and it reported to a Tory Government. That Committee said:
It seems to us that the charge for dental treatment is, in fact, impeding a number of people from making use of the general dental service; and, so far as the charges on the existing charges in the Service are concerned, we would regard the reduction on the incidence of this charge as having the highest priority when additional resources become available.
That was five years ago and we have now had five years of Tory affluence. The right hon. Gentleman said yesterday that dental treatments had gone up 20 per cent. in that time. I hope that he was not suggesting that there was any cause for complacency here. Everyone knows that the standard of teeth in this country is nothing we can be proud of and that it certainly does not compare with the standard in the United States. It would not be an overstatement to say that the teeth of people in Britain compared with those of people in the United States are a disgrace. We in Britain spend infinitely less on teeth than the Americans do. The way the dental charges system works must be a substantial contributory factor to that.
I wish to quote the Economist on this subject. It had a leader which, like those of most of the newspapers, criticised the right hon. Gentleman, but it had this difference—that it criticised him for not having gone far enough in these charges, for not having been brutal enough and thorough in them. Nevertheless, the Economist made one point which I think worth calling to the attention of the Committee and which, I think, is a valid point. Talking about dental charges, it said:

a radical reformer would have changed the whole system of charges for dental treatment, which at present relieve people of the last part of any big dental bills (thus subsidising those who keep away from the dentist until all their teeth rot) but make them pay in full for the first £1 of all dental bills (thus penalising people who go to the dentist regularly).
In case there is misunderstanding, I repeat that we are against all dental charges, but, if we are to have dental charges, there might be a case for so arranging them that they encourage a little more than the present system does the conservation treatment of teeth.
Before I leave the question of dentures and dental charges, I wish to read a letter to the Committee. It is a letter which came "out of the blue" from a dental surgeon working in London, and it said:
I would like to bring to your attention the difficulties of old people, particularly pensioners, in meeting the cost of N.H.S. dentures.
Many old people in this district need new dentures, but are prohibited by the cost of £4 5s."—
now to be £5.
On the whole, they are most reluctant to apply for National Assistance.In many cases old age pensioners have been refused National Assistance.
It appears rather strange that the group who are the most likely to need dentures and can least afford it, are the old and there is no suggestion of helping them.
They can always try to get a refund from National Assistance, but the process is not quite as smooth and easy as the hon. Lady tried to make out. The person who is not in receipt of a regular Assistance payment has to undergo a means test. However this is conducted, it obviously deters large numbers from even applying. Then there is all the physical inconvenience, especially for old people, of getting to the Assistance Board, waiting for a bus to get there, waiting at the Board, and waiting for a bus to get back. I can understand it, reprehensible though it may be, if an old person says, "Is it really worth the trouble?" I say again that these charges are a disincentive to treatment, both in the dental and the medical field.
I turn now to the spectacle charges. Here there is a double deterrent in operation. First, the charges certainly deter those people who are near the National Assistance margin from going to get eye


tests and the spectacles that they probably need, with the inevitable consequential risk to their eyesight. I put it no higher than that.
There is another deterrent. The charges are now sufficiently high to deter people from using the Health Service for their spectacles. They are high enough to encourage them to deal privately with their opticians for their lenses, frames, etc. I am told by opticians that this is a discernible trend at the moment, has been for some time, and will undoubtedly increase as a result of the Bill if it goes through in its present form.
This is not quite so dangerous as self-medication, which is encouraged by the prescription charge, but it is a deplorable thing if we are driving people out of the National Health Service into the hands of private prescription for glasses. This is just what the Minister wants. Think of the effect on his Estimates. The cost of the ophthalmic services will fall until it reaches the point at which the National Health Service really and truly caters only for the indigent.
When dealing with the charges for spectacles I find it convenient to double all the figures, because the figures are per lens, and one normally gets two lenses and a pair of spectacles. The hon. Lady explained to us the Government's reason for taking this action in relation to bifocals. It is true that if a patient obtains bifocal lenses in one pair of glasses he does the same as he could do with a pair of reading glasses and a pair of distance glasses. It is not because it is unfair to other patients that the charge has been raised to £1 or £2 for the pair. It is raised because it is unfair to the right hon. Gentleman. It is because he thinks he is being "done" by the customer who gets the equivalent of two pairs of glasses for the charge in respect of one.
No patient who has a pair of Health Service reading glasses and another pair of distance glasses resents the fact that another patient has obtained a pair of bifocals for the same price. This is ludicrous. It can perhaps be described as putting right an anomaly, but I do not think that it was a sufficiently serious anomaly to bother about.
I should like to ask one question. The Bill also mentions multifocal lenses. I know that there are such things, but I

am told that they do not appear on the official schedule which the Ministry supplies to opticians in connection with prescriptions under the National Health Service.
Before coming to the main increase for the ordinary type of lenses, I repeat the welcome I gave yesterday to the concession for free lenses for children over 10. Since this is costing only £170,000 in a full year, why does not the Minister throw in the frames as well? It would not cost him very much. The hon. Lady's figure was that the popular line cost about 10s. 8d. My guess is that that would perhaps have cost the right hon. Gentleman another £90,000, bringing this concession up from £170,000 to £260,000, compared with the £65 million that he is taking back from patients and the public in a year. Perhaps between now and the remaining stages of the Bill the Government will look at the possibility of adding free Health Service frames to the free lenses they are already granting.
I come now to the increase in the standard charge for lenses, which at 2s. 6d. in the Bill—that is, 5s. a pair—does not look a very large increase, although it is an increase of 25 per cent. On spectacle charges the Guillebaud Committee expressed itself in these very strong terms in paragraph 586:
… it seems to us here too the level of charge is likely to constitute a barrier to a proportion of the people who need to make use of the service. We recommend therefore that, when the resources become available, a fairly high priority (second only to an adjustment of the dental treatment charge) be given to a substantial reduction in the amount of the charge for spectacles.
But there is a 25 per cent. increase five years later.
The increase has produced a very interesting result. To make my point I may have to inflict on the House some rather wearisome details, but I want to take the case of a person who needs two pairs of glasses, one distance and one reading. The arrangement is, as I understand it—I am open to correction by the Minister—that the optician is paid by his Department the net prescription cost of the lenses—that is, less the patient's contribution—and the dispensing fee. With two pairs at once, the dispensing fee is 24s. on the first pair and 10s. on the second pair. The cost of lenses varies considerably, but I am told that 10s. 6d.
a lens is quite a reasonable average price for an average type of lens.
I want now to deal with the curious situation which arises when two pairs are ordered at once. This will affect very much the older age groups. It is the older people who need two pairs of glasses much more than younger people. On the second pair of glasses the net prescription cost will be 10s. 6d. on the type of glasses which I have chosen. The dispensing fee will be 10s., making a total cost of £1 0s. 6d. to the right hon. Gentleman's Department. But the patient will be contributing £1 5s. Therefore, on the second pair of glasses the patient is not contributing to the cost of the spectacles. After paying in full for the spectacles, he is making a forced payment of 4s. 6d. into Exchequer funds. The House cannot permit this. It must be looked into immediately by the right hon. Gentleman.
The situation is not very much better when the two pairs are considered together. I do not want to be unfair to the Minister. The net prescription cost for two pairs is 21s. The double dispensing fee—the large first one and the smaller second one—is 34s. The total is 55s. That is the cost to the Minister. Fifty shillings are paid by the patient. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman's contribution is 5s.
I am told that before the National Health Insurance system came in, the poorest grant given by one of the industrial insurance firms that made grants for spectacles was 17s. 6d. per pair, and that some trade unions gave their members up to 45s. 0d. a pair. That was in the years before we had a National Health Service.
Hon. Members will have noticed that here, as opposed to their method of dealing with prescription charges and amenity beds, the Government have proceeded by means of a Bill, and Clause 2 gives the Minister power to vary the charges by regulations. I imagine that, in this context, "vary" is a euphemism for "increase". If this Clause is accepted, this will be the last time that Members will have an opportunity of properly debating increases in charges, and suggesting Amendments. We shall, in future, simply have Regulations, subject to annulment if a Prayer is tabled against them. We object very strongly to the Minister being given this dangerous power, and we shall resist this Clause to the uttermost.
Incidentally, I notice that, so far, the Minister has given no date for the coming into operation of these increased dental and optical charges. Perhaps he was wise not to do so—

Mr. Powell: Seven days after the Royal Assent.

Mr. Robinson: Yes, but there is no specific date. In other words, the Minister has not yet expressed a hope as to when he expects these charges to come into effect. That may be very wise on his part.
We hear a lot of talk nowadays about images, and those hon. Members who travel abroad a good deal must have discovered that, despite Britain's reduced power in the world, her image in the eyes of other countries has been—until recently, at any rate—that of a humane, progressive society that had its priorities right. To that image, the Welfare State, and particularly the National Health Service, made an immeasurable contribution. All this constant whittling away and hacking away at the Service by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. and right hon. Friends is not only lowering our health standards but, intentionally or otherwise, is actually damaging the country in the eyes of the world.
We regard this as an inequitable and unnecessary Bill, and we shall vote against it.

5.23 p.m.

Sir Hugh Linstead: I was not able to take part in yesterday's debate, as I was not able to catch the eye of the Chair. I am, therefore, grateful to the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) for having opened up the scope of today's debate beyond the narrow limitation of optical and dental treatment and, to that extent, has enabled me to say some of the things that I would have said had I been called yesterday—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): Perhaps I should warn the hon. Member that what the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) said has not increased the scope of the debate, or of the Bill.

Sir H. Linstead: I was about to use the simile of Scylla and Charybdis, but perhaps that is dangerous. I am conscious of the difficulty of keeping within the bounds of order today.
I hope next week to be able to express my disagreement with one part of my right hon. Friend's proposals—the prescription charges—but I warmly support his other proposals. If he will allow me to do it, it is appropriate that someone in the House should make a reference to the personal situation in which the Minister has been placed so far during the debates that we have had.
I prefer to look at his proposals from the point of view that he has found £60 million annually of new money for the National Health Service. Although one may criticise the ways and means by which it is proposed to collect that money, he has started his administrative period by making certain that the money he feels that the Service needs is available.
We have had too many Ministers of Health—too many changes—but I welcome my right, hon. Friend's appointment because I believe that he will create a really viable National Health Service. I believe, too, that in a year or two this House will find itself grateful to my right hon. Friend for the drive and development he will put into this Service and that, historically, the proceedings of last night, today and next week will look extremely curious when we finally assess the real value of his work—

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: I did not quite catch the word used by the hon. Gentleman. Did he say that the Minister was creating a "viable" service or a "violated" service?

Sir H. Linstead: That is just the sort of cheap sneer that is far less than deserved by what my right hon. Friend is trying to do. We had the same thing a moment ago from the hon. Member from St. Pancras North. When, referring to the word "vary" in Clause 2, he said sneeringly "That of course, means 'increase'"—

Mr. K. Robinson: I merely said that I took that word to be a euphemism for "increase". I was going on past experience of the Government. So far, they have done nothing but increase charges.

Sir H. Linstead: That completely overlooks the fact that Clause 2 (2) specially provides that
The power to vary a charge conferred by this section shall include power to direct that it shall not be payable.

I protest against the type of criticism to which my right hon. Friend has been subject—criticism that I feel quite certain some people will regret when the results of his work become more clearly visible.
Ever since it started, I have been deeply involved in the development of the National Health Service—in the pharmaceutical and hospital worlds, and on the Central Health Services Council. It is a service of which I am extremely proud, but when I listened to the description of it given by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) yesterday I could not recognise it as the Service that I know and respect and cherish. If I thought that the kind of proposals my right hon. Friend has put forward would undermine that Service, the last thing that I would wish to do would be to support him in any way.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: Has not the hon. Gentleman seen reports in the medical Press, from his medical friends and from practitioners of all kinds, from almost the whole profession, saying that the Government's proposals are an attack on the foundations of the Health Service? Even the cartoons are to the same effect. We know what has happened in the past. We know what has happened about the hospitals we have been promised. We have had a deputation from Lancashire County here, the Members of which said that they had schools to build, but, as soon as they got going, their facilities and plans were withdrawn. The Tories claim the credit—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that the hon. and learned Member is reverting to yesterday's debate and going rather far from the present Bill.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: May I just have a moment or two to finish? The hon. Member is suggesting we are cynical. We are cynical from experience. If we sneer, it is because we have heard these things so many times.

Sir H. Linstead: Reverting more closely to the Bill, what the hon. and learned Member says emphasises a point which I want to make. In considering the Health Service, we are in grave danger of looking at it in a vacuum. We must not look at any section of the social


services in a vacuum. All are interrelated. When comments are made about delays in the building of hospitals, one has to remember that that was the price paid for the building of new schools.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: Office buildings and luxury hotels.

Sir H. Linstead: What it means is that the country has had to choose between the various sections of the social services which are to be developed, and to determine, as is so frequently said, the priorities.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: How many hospitals have the Tories built in ten years? The hon. Member is frightened so much—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member addressing the House does not give way, the hon. and learned Member must resume his seat.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but we on this side are very angry about the way in which this debate has been conducted and about the things which are said on the other side, the misrepresentations which are made. You must allow us a little liberty. I am sorry. I do not usually let myself explode, but I cannot stand the cynicism we are getting from the benches opposite.

Mrs. Slater: Will the hon. Gentleman—

Sir H. Linstead: I am sorry, but I cannot give way to the hon. Lady.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: Will the hon. Gentleman answer my question? How many hospitals have the Tories built in ten years?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must ask the hon. and learned Member to resume his seat.

Sir H. Linstead: I am not at all anxious to raise the temperature of the debate, but I want hon. Members opposite to realise that we on this side are just as jealous about the development of the social services as they are. Our feelings about the development of these services are as deep as theirs, and they must allow us to express our feelings as warmly as they take the liberty of expressing theirs.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: It was hon. Members opposite who voted against the services.

Sir H. Linstead: I believe that what is happening as a result of the new financial Measures which my right hon. Friend is proposing is to give the Health Service a new "break" which it has been waiting for for many years. What is now proposed in relation to the Service as a whole means that—in respect of direct payments—those who have the benefit of it will fall into three fairly clear classes. First, there will be those who, for want of a better word. I shall call the indigent, who will pay nothing. Next, there will be the working population, who will pay towards it a contribution which they will regard as an insurance contribution. There will then be the remainder of the population, a very large remainder, who will pay charges only.
Looking at the receipt of benefits from the Service in the light of those three classes, I should have thought that the system adds up to something of which we can be quite proud, with one proviso—this unites me, to some extent, with hon. and right hon. Members opposite—the proviso that there shall be a built-in assurance against hardship. As I have already said, it is on this question that I have certain doubts.
My assessment of the situation is this. About 80 per cent. of the population will be able to take these new charges and contributions in their stride. About 10 per cent. of the population will have them paid through the National Assistance Board machinery. The group which, frankly, gives me concern is the fringe group not entitled to refunds through the National Assistance Board which will yet have to look at both sides of half-a-crown rather carefully before parting with it. This is the group on which, I trust, my right hon. Friend will keep his mind wide open.
My right hon. Friend gave us an undertaking that, if examples of hardship could be given within this group of patients, he would give his careful attention to them. I am grateful to him for that because my feeling is that the machinery of the National Assistance Board, as the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North has said, does not work


as smoothly and easily as it may be described as working. In country districts, too, it is by no means easy for people to collect refunds from the Board. I hope that after the new scheme has been running for a few months my right hon. Friend will actively make inquiries among those who deal direct with the patients to find out whether or not the belief which he has expressed, that hardship can be met, is soundly based.

Mr. Stan Awbery: There are circumstances which will arise where the Minister cannot help. On Saturday, I met a man who told me that he had expected a 7s. 6d. increase in his pension, but had just received a letter saying that it would be 1s. because of what he was receiving from the National Assistance Board. This man has to go to the doctor twice a week and he has to pay for two prescriptions. The Minister cannot do anything for a man like that.

Sir H. I.instead: The point to be remembered is that none of the payments made by the National Assistance Board in refunds operate in any way as a reduction of pension. They are separate and apart from any pension payments of any kind at all.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: May I just put one exploratory question to the hon. Member? I am obliged to him for giving way. He says that the National Assistance Board payments are outwith the pensions received. Will he examine the position of the permanently injured ex-Service man and see whether that is true in his case?

Sir H. Linstead: I think I am right in saying that the permanently injured ex-Service man, in respect of any medical needs arising out of his disability, has no payment of any kind to make at all.

Mr. Winterbottom: But what about prescriptions?

Sir H. Linstead: That is out of order. I must not be tempted into giving way again.
I have one other suggestion to put to my right hon. Friend. Will he consider sending a circular to the almoners of hospitals drawing their attention to the fact that out of funds at their disposal

they can sometimes help with payments in these borderline cases of hardship? I know that such help is given in some hospitals and that it varies considerably between one hospital and another.
I have substantial doubts, which I hope to express next week, about the effects of the prescription charges. I have no regrets about any other part of my right hon. Friend's proposals. Generally, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what he is doing to find new money for the Health Service. By having had this type of debate at the very beginning of his period at the Ministry he will get over his major hurdle, and I hope that when the dust has settled he will have before him a fruitful period of development of the great Service of which he is head.

5.41 p.m.

Dr. A. D. D. Broughton: The hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) has let us know quite clearly that he regards the imposition of these charges as a thoroughly good idea. Judging by the compliments which he paid his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, one might think that the right hon. Gentleman is a pin-up boy. The hon. Gentleman must forgive me if I do not follow him along those lines.
I wish to add my voice to those raised in protest against these charges. I condemn the Government for the imposition of these monstrous charges. I am aware that the Bill relates to increased charges for dentures and spectacles, but it is only part of the very gloomy picture which the Minister of Health painted when he told us of bis policy for taking more money from patients who need the services of doctors, opticians and dentists. It is difficult to confine one's remarks strictly to the Bill. I should like to be allowed to speak on the Bill in conjunction with the other charges which are to be made and the increased contributions for the Health Service which are being demanded.
It seems clear to me from the debate earlier in the week that the country's economy is not in a particularly healthy state. Therefore, the Minister of Health, with the approval of the Government, has decided to save a matter of £65 million. We know that there has been a rising bill of costs in the Health Service, but I believe that these proposed


economies are quite unnecessary because the proportion of the national income spent on the Service has not risen. It is still about 4 per cent.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman is reverting to yesterday's debate.

Dr. Broughton: I will not pursue that point any further. One is in some difficulty, because, as I said, these proposals are but a part of the policy which the Minister is putting forward.

Mr. K. Robinson: On a point of order. As these proposals are part of a much wider set of proposals, surely it is in order to argue, as I sought to do, against the reasons advanced by the Minister for introducing any of these charges. Surely that must be in order on Second Reading.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: An hon. Member can refer to that as the background to the Bill, but, in my view, he cannot go into a long debate on a far larger issue which is not raised by the Bill.

Mr. Michael Stewart: Further to that point of order. My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton) had only just begun to refer to this matter. I do not think that he was proposing to go into a long debate. Surely it is in order, and one of the characteristic features of a Second Reading debate, for an hon. Member to deal not only with what is in the Bill, but with the relation it bears to the general trend of Government policy. I think that that is what my hon. Friend was doing.

Mr. W. Griffiths: Further to that point of order. The Minister of Health said several times—this was his justification for these charges—that the hospital building programme would be jeopardised if he did not impose these charges. Surely my hon. Friend, or any hon. Member, is entitled to try to rebut that argument as it is an essential part of the Minister's argument for the Bill.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is all a matter of degree. We had better see how we get along.

Dr. Broughton: I did not wish to pursue that point at great length, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for

Fulbam (Mr. M. Stewart) was good enough to explain, I wished to mention it in passing.
Having said that, I wish to say emphatically that, in my opinion, there is no valid reason for the imposition of these charges. What is to happen is that money is to be taken from the old, the sick and the disabled for charges for dentures and spectacles as well as for other things—prescriptions, welfare foods, and so on.
In support of my protest, I should like to read a letter which I received only today. It came from the Wakefield and District Area Council of the National Federation of Old Age Pensions Associations. While my constituency does not cover any part of Wakefield, this area council covers part of my constituency. The letter reads:
We of the above area meeting, representing eight branches of the National Federation of Old Age Pensions Associations, strongly protest against the proposed increases as outlined by Mr. E. Powell, the Minister of Health…. Along with other organisations, we deplore such increases as they are outrageous and no doubt a serious inroad into the Welfare State, and they are falling most heavily on those least able to bear them.
I agree with that letter. I think that it is very depressing for us to receive letters of that kind. Money is to be taken from the old, the sick and the disabled, and, so the Minister tells us, it is to be used for building hospitals.
To try to take our minds off the hardship which these charges will inflict on patients, the Minister told us about a wonderful long-term hospital programme. I have the privilege of working in a famous hospital, and the Minister must know that there will always be pressure from the medical, nursing and administrative staffs in hospitals, as well as from hospital management committees and regional hospital boards, for more and better facilities. I realise that there is a need for hospitals and I am glad to hear of the improvements which are to be made in that direction, but I believe that the Minister is putting too much emphasis on hospitals. He has told us nothing about prevention.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that that arises from the Bill.

Dr. Broughton: I was going no further with that aspect.
The Bill increases charges for dental and optical treatment. As I understood it, the Minister said that this money was needed to be taken away from these people and that it would be used for building hospitals. I am pleased that the hospitals are to be built, but I think that the Minister has laid too much emphasis on the matter of providing hospitals.
What is required at the Ministry of Health is an imaginative architect who would come before this House to launch an inspiring policy. I can tell the Minister what some of that policy should be. Instead of there being a wretched Bill of this description, imposing these charges for dental and optical treatment, there should be absolutely free medical, dental and optical 'treatment, as well as free welfare foods, for all expectant and nursing mothers. They are the most important people in the nation and they should be cared for in that way. The provision of free medical, dental and optical treatment as well as welfare foods should be given to all children up to the age of 16. That would be a great investment: a healthy population for the future.
I believe that the operation of this outrageous policy which we are having to consider will fill the hospitals that the Minister is talking of building. These charges, as well as the others that we considered yesterday and will be talking about next week, will deter patients from seeking treatment when they need it and will, therefore, lead to chronic illness. What the Minister should be doing is launching a programme which would be a long-term policy for closing hospitals.
These charges together with the others are cruel and callous. Looked at as a policy for improving the health of the nation, they are absolutely wrong and disastrous. They will hurt a lot of people who can least bear the pain. I regard these measures as a retrograde step and we shall strongly oppose them.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. David Webster: I have great pleasure in following the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton). I heard him with great interest when I first arrived in this House discussing a non-partisan but controversial Bill.
This is an equally controversial Bill, but it is not unpartisan. First, we should

remember that it is only a small amount that is being saved—between £ 2½ million and £3 million. I cannot think that that amount of money, divided among the entire population, will cause the distress and hardship which has been depicted with great sincerity from the other side of the House.
We on this side are anxious about the hardship aspects of the Bill. They have been mentioned from this side and I hope later to mention them myself, because they are something about which we have been concerned. In many cases, however, we are satisfied that the hardship has been overstated.
The basic purpose of the Bill and of the entire exercise that my right hon. Friend is now pursuing, this week and next week, is to maintain the balance in what is being paid to support our magnificent Health Service and to maintain the balance in what is paid by the user or by the same person as a taxpayer. In many respects, I do not think that hon. and right hon. Members opposite can quarrel with this balance.
With the new scheme and the new savings, at the end of the year the total outlay for the country will be £867 million. I cannot think that when £663 million, or 70 per cent., is paid out of Exchequer finances, it is only the indigent who is using it. It is a large proportion—70 per cent.—of the service which is being paid by the Exchequer. The argument about indigence, therefore, does not hold good. It is consistent with the policy of hon. Members opposite when in office and when, at the inception of the scheme, the Financial Memorandum stated that we would have a Health Service costing £175 million, of which £110 million was to be contributed by the taxpayer. That also bears the same percentage—72 per cent.—of the total amount paid out of Exchequer funds.
The figures have risen considerably and they have been extremely erratic from time to time. Despite their erratic nature, however, the one thing that has remained constant is that both parties in this House, when in office, maintained the proportion of 70 per cent. which was paid out of Exchequer funds. I am surprised to see hon. Members opposite kicking up such a clamour today when we are simply maintaining the same percentage as they


maintained in 1946 and 1949–50, when, of a total expenditure of £452 million, 76 per cent., or £345 million, was paid out of the pockets of taxpayers.
It was at that moment that the Leader of the Opposition, whose name I found, with great surprise, accompanying the Motion of censure yesterday and opposing the Bill today, imposed the £400 million limit.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I recollect that I was here and voted against that proposition, but I did not find any Tories in the Division Lobby with me.

Mr. Webster: I am sorry that I was not here to see the hon. Member, but I am always interested in his activities. I was interested also to see from a certain paper that he might have become one of the Opposition Whips in the House. I do not know how that would have fitted in with his Division record at that time.
We realise that there have been financial changes, but the principles evaluated in those days by the Leader of the Opposition still remain constant. When talking about the £400 million level, the Leader of the Opposition said that the only way to limit the expenditure to £400 million, which he found to be a suitable figure at that time—we have exceeded it by 52 per cent. in ten years—
without reducing the standards of the hospital, family doctor and consultant services below what is really essential is to find some other source of revenue."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th April, 1951; Vol. 486, c. 851–2.]
That is what we are doing today. We are, in fact, doing as the Leader of the Opposition, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, said in his Budget speech in April, 1951.
I find it very odd that the party opposite in general supported that policy without the support, it is true, of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes)—and yet today, as one man, Members opposite are in complete clamour against the policy that they themselves carried out.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: Is the hon. Member aware that my right hon. Friend's speech which he has quoted was made during the Korean War, when world prices were rocketing and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was substantially increasing taxation, and that

what was done at that time was done temporarily to cover the country's difficulties? Is the hon. Member aware of all these things?

Mr. Webster: I am. I am only sorry that the hon. Member either was not here or was not listening to me when I pointed out that I was aware of the financial difficulties, but that the principle and the ratio of 70 per cent. had been consistent throughout the whole of National Health Service policy. Money is money, from whomsoever it comes. It still has to be found. That percentage ratio is one thing which has been maintained by both political parties when in office. Now the Opposition are acting very differently from what they did when they were responsible for the country's administration.

Mr. W. Griffiths: I wish that the hon. Member would not keep saying that it is always 70 per cent. That is quite untrue, In his own speech he has referred to it as at one time 76 per cent. He must not keep on saying 70 per cent. It is quite inaccurate.

Mr. Webster: We are not measuring it to the nearest millimetre, but that is a ratio which has been kept throughout the history of the Health Service. I think that it is a very fair ratio and both parties when in office have definitely supported that amount.
I have already said that many of us on this side of the House experienced considerable anxiety when my right hon. Friend put forward his proposals because we were anxious that there should not be distress for the needy. Hon. Members opposite must allow us on this side to have the same sincerity as well. There has been a great deal of bandying about of words like "cynicism" during the debate. It is not fair to say that we are not sincere. We were sincerely anxious about need and we are glad that provisions for the dental and medical services release the nursing and expectant mother from difficulties in that respect.
Children under 16 or up to school age, whichever is the greater, if school age can be considered a great age, are also to be excluded from the dental provisions of the Bill. It is an excellent thing that we as Conservatives should support a policy of conserving children's


teeth and it is good that these charges are not increased by ray right hon. Friend's Measure.
I support the hon. Member for Batley and Morley in his plea that we should stick to preventive medicine. Certainly, that policy has been carried out in the provisions that we have made for the preservation of the teeth. The provision of lenses for children up to the age of 16 is a good thing. It is also excellent that children over 10 years of age should be allowed a choice and not be compelled to have the metal-frame type of glasses which are less attractive, particularly for the teenagers who begin to take an interest in their appearance.
Children under 10 years of age are a problem in this respect. I have my own contribution coming on to the teenage problem, two of over 10 years of age and one very much under 10 years, who has had to wear glasses. I am sure that if they had been of the non-metal kind they would have been broken many times.

Mr. W. Griffiths: Does the hon. Member's son wear metal-framed glasses?

Mr. Webster: He did, but he does not now. I am glad to say that the curative effects of the Health Service have been so beneficial that he does not now require them. But he managed to break even a metal pair and what he would have done to the other kind might have caused the Service a great deal of expense.
I share the view already expressed that it is not only those who are in receipt of supplementary benefit who need to receive a refund by payment through the Post Office and, if necessary, in advance. I would ask my hon. Friend to take note of those who live in rural areas such as my constituency. Their homes are often quite a distance away from the Post Office. I am aware that few dental or ophthalmic specialists set up shop under the village chestnut tree, but this same principle applies to all aspects of prescription and refunds paid by the National Assistance Board through the Post Office, and hardship can result to people who live some distance away.
The total savings from all these measures are about £65 million in a full year of which £48 million are to be met

by contributions and £17 million by charges. After deduction of £12½ million for prescription charges the remaining charges are a very small proportion of the whole. It is very unfair to say that grievous hardship will be caused. The contribution paid by the recipient of benefit is not great when it is remembered that in the last decade average earnings have gone up to £14 10s. from £7 10s., or nearly by 100 per cent. I believe that a great many people are quite willing to stand on their own feet.
My basic problem with the Ministry of Health ever since I came into the House has been to secure a new hospital for my constituents in Weston-super-Mare. I am quite determined that this should not be jeopardised, but I am sure that if we were to continue to pay out all the charges for which my right hon. Friend now seeks approval, and those for which he will seek approval next week, we would jeopardise the country's hospital building programme. There are people of modest means who need spectacles and dentures and prescriptions of various kinds, but, as we all know, the greatest need, in the end, is for hospital accommodation.
I still think that when the hour of need conies it is hospital accommodation of an up-to-date kind that is most required. A theme which we might note in dealing with the Bill is that throughout history a country or a Government has been successful in its policy if its aims and its means have been commensurate and if its means have not been disbursed on every small thing that comes along and have been kept for the main purpose. Where there has been failure, it has been where there has been large disbursements on small things and the essentials have been forgotten.
In this Bill we come back to the sound principle of saying that people can contribute towards what they receive in order that there may be more available to enable the Health Service to expand and to enable us to have new hospitals. All these measures put our policy in a brave new light.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: I assure the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) that we on this side of the House respect the sincerity of a number of hon. Members opposite.
On a Bill of this kind and matter affecting the National Health Service there is always a hard core of hon. Members on both sides of the House, though all too few, who will always try to catch Mr. Speaker's or Mr. Deputy-Speaker's eye. We on this side, however, are far more concerned about the large number of hon. Members opposite who do not seem to speak the same language as ourselves.
The hon. Member was typical of this approach when he spoke about preserving a balance between the user of the National Health Service and the taxpayer, as if in some way or other use of the Service was a privilege giving advantage and gain. We are talking about people who have disabilities or are in some distress. The basis on which we approach this Bill and similar Measures is that we try to preserve the principle that people who suffer disabilities of any kind should be looked after by those who are more fortunate.
The hon. Member harked back to a subject which has been frequently mentioned in debates of this kind, namely to what happened at the time of the Korean War. My hon. Friends have already answered that point, but I have not heard any hon. Member opposite so far make clear that the measures taken at that time were to be of limited duration and that those who reluctantly agreed to them did so on the understanding that they could be ended in the ensuing three years.
Although hon. Members opposite talk about these new provisions not doing a grievous amount of damage, we regard these proposals as rather like a case of dental caries. They might be small in relation to the whole income and prosperity of the country, but this Measure is like a small hole in a tooth, indicating decay which we fear might grow and destroy the rest. Some of the things that we have heard in the course of the debate suggest that our fears are justified.
I am sorry if any of my words have given offence to the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead), who has now left the Chamber, because he has played his part in this kind of issue previously. Yet he must understand that we feel so deeply about Measures of this kind that at times we can no longer contain our

irritation. If this causes you any embarrassment, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, then I also apologise to you, but when we feel so profoundly we cannot avoid giving vent to our feelings.
This Bill is part of a greater measure of economy carried out in order, the Minister claims, to underpin the National Health Service. I understand that it is the duty of Her Majesty's Opposition to oppose. One point of order which you were unable to hear last night, and which I was trying to put, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, was an appeal to you to tell me how after sitting in the Chamber from 2.30 to midnight I was to have the opportunity to oppose. I am very glad to have that opportunity now. Those of us who have had some association with the National Health Service, and feel keenly about it, will relentlessly oppose every dot and comma of the Bill, or any other Measure which tries to destroy the principle in which we believe.
The Bill seeks to find a further £3 million in a full year, and £1¾ million this year. As I have said, this is part of a greater campaign. We should like to know how hard the Minister fought his colleagues on this issue. If our affluent society is in such dire straits, was there any attempt to find these economies elsewhere? On the contrary, however, it seems to be a principle, announced with crusading fervour from the benches opposite, that the sick should pay for the healthy.
Did the Minister seek to save this £3 million from the Minister of Agriculture instead of from the National Health Service? Yesterday hon. Members opposite talked on the question of how far the Government could continue to subsidise. At one stage we almost got a debate on council housing. But, in looking for £3 million, could not the right hon. Gentleman have used his powers of persuasion to examine the £187 million subsidy on deficiency payments, at the grant of £26 million for structural improvements and at the other agricultural subsidies totalling about £40 million—making altogether a total of more than £250 million?

Mr. Richard Marsh: Surely my hon. Friend misunderstands the position. Does he think that the


Minister of Health had any qualifications for his present office other than that he detests the National Health Service, root, tooth and branch?

Mr. Pavitt: I accept my hon. Friend's opinion. I was trying to see, without going to the root and branches of agriculture or to other fields or pastures new—but we had enough clichés from the Chancellor of the Exchequer earlier this week and I shall not pursue that further. There are other ways in which the Minister of Health could have used his forceful personality to find the £3 million he wants to save the Exchequer funds.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) has drawn the attention of the House to some weird coincidences. I was tackled in my constituency by doctors who, strangely enough, received their retrospective payment arising from the Pilkington award on 1st February—the day the Minister made his announcement here. Again, strangely enough, the supplementary Estimate which we passed as the result of the Report of the Royal Commission on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration exactly equates with the amount to be raised from prescriptions. Another strange coincidence I noticed in The Times was when on one page it announced that the Government were to save £65 million on health and on another page told of the amount actually paid out so far on the Blue Streak fiasco cost £67 million.
I wonder why the Health Service is always the first scapegoat for the Government. It is always the first in the queue for this sort of treatment. The biggest fallacy which we had when the Service was first introduced was that because false teeth were free people were dashing to the dentist and having teeth pulled out right, left and centre. It was said that they were being pampered. It was said that people would go to the doctor simply because his services were free. What nonsense this was.
Any barrier between a man who is suffering illness or disability and the necessary therapy to cure him is a bad thing, yet the Minister is producing more and more such barriers. Most of us try to avoid awkward situations. We try to avoid going to the dentist's chair. Now there is the incentive of a cash barrier between us and the dentist's chair

which makes a ready excuse for putting off treatment that ought to be undergone.
The hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary has said that the whole basis of good dentistry is the conservation of teeth. I wish she would apply the principle of conservation to the Health Service. In that case, would it not have been better to have looked further into improvement of the dental service, to see if anything could be done about fluoridation? Ministry of Health officials have been very forthright about it, have given some good advice and are in favour of it. Yet we find no action by the Minister that could measure up to the possibility of saving the teeth of millions of children from dental caries through the fluoridation of water.
Fluoridation has already been carried out in New Zealand, the World Health Organisation has recommended it, and Ministry of Health officials support it. But the Minister of Health has had only three schemes—I believe at Watford, Anglesey and Kilmarnock—two or three years ago and, as far as we know, no results have been communicated to us. If the Minister is trying to conserve the teeth of our children could he not have done something energetic about that?
Dentists are paid by item of service. The more the Minister can conserve teeth in our youngsters, the less he will have to pay later. I think that it was the British Dental Association which, when recommending the raising, by a small percentage, of fluorides in water, estimated that this would save half the dental treatment in this country and so save a much greater sum than this, miserable £3 million which is to be extracted from people needing treatment for their teeth and eyesight.
We can, at least, be grateful that he stopped short at children under 16. They—or their parents—can be saved this increased cost. Instead of looking at ways and means of saving money we should be doing something about the school dental service. We have enormous numbers of children served by a woefully inadequate number of dentists who somehow have to examine and conserve their teeth.
This Bill, of course, is not for that purpose, but it seems very relevant that these kind of measures should be taken and should have priority over the sort of


Bill for which the Minister is now asking us to give a Second Reading. The right hon. Gentleman has no idea of the family economics of people who live on weekly incomes, of the way in which the ordinary person meets the extra bills, whether an old-age pensioner, meeting the impact of coal bills in winter or the charges for spectacles or dentures. This is a sudden charge, once in a while, that does not come in the normal weekly payments. It is no good hon. Members opposite talking about thrift because the whole background and pattern of our society is to persuade more and more people to keep up with the Joneses even by hire-purchase. People are got at, through T.V., at 15-minute intervals. If one saves for one's dentures or is very patriotic and puts some money into War Loans one finds, as compared with equities, that the price for £100 of War Loan is now £57, so thriftiness does not help.
Looking at the problem of spectacles and the charges to be imposed, may I say to the Parliamentary Secretary and to hon. Members opposite who defended the case for children under 9 having steel-rimmed spectacles, that there is a terrific psychological background to be considered with youngsters. How many of us have heard "Four eyes, four eyes" being called out to children with steel-rimmed spectacles? The hon. Lady said that she had had the advice of experts upon this. I wonder how many paediatricians or psychologists had some say in how this affected the youngster who was thus different from the others as the one person in a class wearing spectacles whereas the others did not. I cannot accept that even with children under 9 there is not a case for giving a freedom of choice of frames to the parents so that the children can be made to feel that they can wear their glasses with the same amount of pride as the teen-agers who wear the fly-away wing efforts which even do sometimes enhance their beauty.
The Minister's Bill has shown what, again, is typical of the approach of the Government in most things, that the consumer is the residual legatee after the rest of society have had their pick. One can have pressure groups from industry, producers and retailers, but the person wearing the glasses is the

person eventually selected to meet the Exchequer's deficiency. I wonder what other avenues the right hon. Gentleman has explored. I am thinking very much in terms of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey) and of the campaign he has waged about lenses and frames.
I have just had my first pair of spectacles and I took the trouble of finding out what the National Health Insurance frames look like. I was shown 43 different types but they were 43 variations on a theme of three basic types. The only difference was in the position of the covering.
If we are trying to build a progressive health service, for people who have deficient eyesight can we not be prepared to provide a design which is comparable with anything private enterprise can give, and so we can bring down the cost to what is absolutely necessary. If hon. Gentlemen opposite are to force these charges on us, is it not possible to look at ways and means to reduce the cost of frames for people who want a choice?
Looking at the material of which the frames are made I think this could be done. I can see no reason why Her Majesty's Government, with all the power of the Exchequer behind it cannot make a wide variety of designs that have a forward looking modern appeal in National Health spectacle frames. There is a huge market in which they would be used and it should be possible to produce them cheaper than the private industry can. Is the right hon. Gentleman as frightened to compete with the manufacturers of spectacle frames as he seems to be frightened of the pharmaceutical industry? Before this Bill was introduced how much research work had the Minister done on the whole costing of spectacles and their frames and all that goes to make them up?
As I said before, my main charge on this question of spectacles is that some people are reluctant to visit the optician and get that help which will make their lives a little easier, and it is easy for them then to put it off rather than meet the extra charge, especially if they also need to go through all of the problems of going to the National Assistance Board. It is easier to go along to the


nearest Woolworths and get a pair of spectacles that more or less suits their eyesight.
What we are trying to do with the National Health Service is to give ordinary people the best qualified attention in sickness, distress or disability. The Bill does precisely the opposite. It persuades people away from the specialist and encourages them to do nothing and to put up with it, or to take the burden on their own shoulders and to treat themselves.
In presenting all these changes in the Health Service the Minister has been accused by my hon. Friend of thinking in words of statistics. He has been accused of being the hatchet man. I am disappointed because when the Minister was a back bencher I listened to his speeches with great interest. They were always logical and when he had a case, although I did not always agree with it, it was at least a case which could be logically made. I cannot say that the National Health Service is all Greek to him, although I might have said that of his predecessors, but he has not a clue about the way human relationships tick. When he brings his Measure before us he says he is hoping to look specially at the human relationship between doctor and patient, and so on. He shows a profound lack of understanding of the relationship between, for example, optician and patient, and dentist and patient.
The thing that the National Health Service has sought to do most is to relieve anxiety at times of distress. There should be no anxiety as to payments, and no anxiety as to ways and means of getting help. The right hon. Gentleman has made it quite clear that he is quite prepared that at the very lowest level, when a person is absolutely at the bottom rung of the ladder, he should be helped, but he is not prepared to have a constructive approach to the mass of the community so that they shall be able to employ a Service which will bring them up to the level of healthy citizens and give them the relief from the things from which they suffer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton) said, it is a question of this, as with other issues, being introduced

by the Minister of Health. It is the old people who really take most of the burden. Although I accept the fact that hon. Gentlemen opposite quite sincerely believe that their provisions for National Assistance have safeguarded the very worst cases in the community, those of us who have anything to do with old people know their near terror of coming into contact with any officials, and the idea of putting a case and talking about their personal conditions is enough to prevent a number of them taking advantage of the safety net which the Minister has erected. I wonder whether this Bill will ultimately achieve the saving of £3 million which the Minister hopes for. Every time previous Ministers have tried this whittling away, they have finished up not having made the saving intended.
The Minister may be seeking to plan for hospitals by cutting back some of these ancillary services, but I beg him not to become too institution-minded, especially at a time when medicine is moving towards more domiciliary treatment. We are grateful that he has realised that the hospital service has suffered from neglect for so long.

Mr. Speaker: I find it difficult to relate what the hon. Member is saying to the Bill.

Mr. Pavitt: The £3 million which we are saving is to be used to underpin the Health Service, to use the Minister's expression, and one of the ways in which he hopes to be able to underpin it is to plan for hospital development. What I am saying is that he should not do so at the expense of the services mentioned in the Bill. We welcome the fact that he is belatedly converted to planning—a number of Ministers now seem to be converted to planning—but I hope that he will bear in mind the changing patterns of treatment even in hospital institutions. During the last ten years there has been a complete change in the use of antibiotics, and so on, and as many of the scourges of the past have been eliminated there has been an increase in mental stress and psychological disorders. I am asking the right hon. Gentleman not to be too institution-minded and to be more mundane and less Emergency Ward 10 glamour-minded, and to remember the importance of things like teeth and spectacles rather than building monumental institutions.
The right hon. Gentleman fails to realise that the Health Service as a whole is not static. It is something which should be growing and advancing, but the arrangements proposed in the Bill are regressive and static. The right hon. Gentleman is trying to impose barriers where there should be freedom. We were hoping that we should have from a new Minister that creative leadership which has not yet come in the Health Service since the last Labour Minister. The Ministry of Health seems to be a hot seat occupied by people only in order that they can advance elsewhere, or occupied for only a short time. We hope that at some time the Government will give the Service that kind of consideration and permanency which we feel it deserves.

Mrs. Slater: Would my hon. Friend agree that when the Health Service was started by the Labour Party there was creative leadership and that that is the kind of leadership which we want to keep?

Mr. Speaker: That would not be in order.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Hon. Members opposite have assumed throughout these debates that my party is against the National Health Service, because of the proposal which my right hon. Friend has made. That is a strange outlook when one considers that we have kept it going for the long time that we have been in office and, indeed, have sought to develop it. I am sure that the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) will agree that Members from both sides of the House have contributed to or assisted in the development of the Service. Many hon. Members on both sides have played their part in this work over the years.
I am especially interested in Clause 2 of the Bill, which not only enables charges to be increased, but permits the Minister in future years to increase the charges by Order or to abolish or vary them. I should like to pose two or three questions. What will be the position if the charges have to be increased in future? What is the possibility of the charges having to be increased if the cost of the Service goes up in the next few years, as it has done in the past few years? What can we do

to ensure that these charges are temporary and that they even disappear—for indeed it is implied that they can disappear?
All along the Minister has emphasised that he wants the Service to develop. He has said that again and again, and hon. Members on this side of the House support him in that. To judge by the sound and fury which we have had from the Opposition, one would think that the Minister had taken an axe to the Service. All he has done is to lop off a few inches from the tree, and it is certain that the few inches of increased cost which he has lopped will grow again in the next two or three years.

Mr. Marsh: Does not the hon. Member agree that £65 million is a pretty hefty inch?

Mr. Lewis: When related to the whole cost of the Service, it is not enormous. I confess that I would like to see a National Health Service without charges other than perhaps a graduated contribution. I am inclined towards a graduated contribution in due course, but this Bill has been introduced simply as a matter of priority, and it is important to remember that.
It seems to me that it has been decided, not by the Minister of Health but by the Government as a whole, that people should pay for their teeth and spectacles, as they should for their drugs, which are outside the scope of the Bill, rather than that something else which the State provides should be charged for.
In the economic debate earlier this week, the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinching-brooke) suggested that it might be desirable to apply a charge of 5s. a week for secondary education. I believe that the Government are wholly right to say that we should have free education and that, if necessary, there should be certain charges in the Health Service in order to keep education free.
Nevertheless, if my right hon. Friend and his successors continue to take advantage of the powers which the Bill provides and if there are further increases in charges for spectacles, teeth and drugs and/or other things, we have to accept the fact that we will gradually get away from a free or near-free Health Service. If the Minister intends to develop the Service as he wishes, and as I am sure he does wish, especially in the


hospital service, then we must consider the results financially. It must be remembered that the hospital service is the most expensive branch of the Health Service. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have a sort of phobia about the cost of drugs, but, relatively speaking, that is only a small pan of the total cost of the Service.
The most expensive part and the part which has increased most in the last few years is the hospital service. If we are to expand that service, we have either to continue to use the provisions of the Bill to increase the charges year by year, or else stop the development of the service, or develop it at the cost of expenditure on other social services—education, housing, or some other important service which the people need. That is clearly the situation.
Having considered the present priorities, it has been decided that the National Health Service is to have certain imposts. I confess that I should like to see the charges disappear altogether. How can this be achieved? How can we develop this Service without killing the taxpayer? I know that this is arguable, but I believe that it can be done only by allowing those who want to opt out of the Service to do so. It can be done if we create and deliberately encourage an independent Health Service.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) is not here. She told us yesterday that her mother had been trying to get into a hospital and had found that she could not do so for many weeks. The hon. Lady, although giving great praise to the National Health Service, was pointing out a great deficiency in it. The Service is overworked. The hon. Lady was able to get her mother into a private hospital because that sector is not at the moment overworked because it is too costly.
I should like to see the development of a private service that is not too costly—not a service that requires the payment of £20, £30 or £40 a week, but one that is reasonable and that many people can afford to use. Indeed, the bones of such a service exist already, because various insurance schemes such as the British United Provident Scheme, and so on, have developed in recent years and are now receiving more and more support, not merely from rich people but from people of modest means.

Mr. W. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman is making a plea for the extension or greater use of the private sector. He will be aware, of course, that at the moment part-time consultants are receiving very handsome sums indeed. Although under contract under the National Health Service Scheme, they are allowed to practise privately. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a lot of people are very apprehensive about the consequences of this two-tier system? They suspect that access to beds is often obtained by fee-paying patients at the expense of National Health Service patients.

Mr. Lewis: A consultant cannot officially get a private bed within the National Health Service. It is completely out of order, and against the present law, for a consultant to charge a fee if the patient is in a National Health Service bed.

Mr. Speaker: I am concerned about the other kind of order. We seem to be getting a long way away from charges for optical appliances and teeth.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to get my teeth into the subject without your having to put on your spectacles to see that I am not going beyond the borders of order. I shall try to keep within them. I was being drawn away by the interventions.
The trouble with the sector of health that is under private control is that it is not really stimulated by official recognition. It will probably be necessary to permit people to opt out of paying their National Health Service contributions before we get a real exercise of will towards the private sector. I do not want to discuss the development of a private health service tonight because you have said, Mr. Speaker, that that is not within the terms of this Bill.
What I want to suggest is that the kind of charges in the Bill might be unnecessary if it were possible to reduce the cost of the National Health Service by encouraging some people to go outside it. It may be said that this suggestion will damage or destroy the National Health Service. In my view, it will do nothing of the sort. It will revitalise the Service, because the people who come out will leave more room for


those who want to use it. Also, it will enable the present professional set-up within the National Health Service—the consultants and auxiliary medical people and others—to have a further outlet.
At the moment there is virtually only one employer in health matters. We are dealing with a monopoly Service and there are only a few doctors who can get a living outside it.

Mr. Pavitt: Can the hon. Gentleman explain how, with the present shortage of school dentists, if this alternative Service were extended and more people outside the Service were using dentists, this would help us to provide good dental services in schools within the terms of the Bill?

Mr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned one aspect of the Service in which there happens to be a shortage of experts. In contrast, consultants and registrars are unable to find jobs. Registrars and senior registrars are unable to get senior appointments within the hospital service for the simple reason that such appointments are not available.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot find anything in the Bill relating to surgeons or registrars. They have not the remotest connection with the Bill.

Mr. Lewis: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. This contributes to empire-building within the Service.
I have always taken the view, both as regards health and welfare, that a State service is important for those who want and need it, but I consider that the State service could be improved if we had a yardstick by which to judge its efficiency. At the moment, if the cost of the Service increases we can pay for those increases only by putting up the charges as we are doing in the Bill. Because we have no yardstick at the moment, it is difficult to say that people responsible for the Service are not working economically and that they should save on this department or the other. If, however, we encourage in the private sector another scheme to run parallel with this one, into which people can voluntarily pay to insure themselves, assisted perhaps by industry, we should without doubt have a yardstick. If we found that in the private sector there was efficiency at less cost,

we should know that in the public sector there would have to be an improvement and a tightening up.
I congratulate the Minister on taking what I believe are temporary steps. The Minister had been criticised by hon. Members opposite, but I believe that he intends to take an imaginative and wide view of health, which is what is required. He may not agree with my suggestions, but I hope that, within the next year or so, he will be able to make proposals for improving the whole of the nation's Health Service.

6.50 p.m.

Commander Harry Pursey: For the first time I must say that I hope that the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. K. Lewis) will forgive me if I do not follow his arguments. I can sum them up in one word—"Nonsense". He is advocating two National Health Services. He might as well advocate two Post Offices, two Armies, two Navies, two Air Forces, two kinds of council organisation, two Civil Services, and two educational systems.

Mr. K. Lewis: rose ½

Commander Pursey: Wait a minute. The hon. Member has only just resumed his seat. I hope that he will give me a chance. I am not very good at this. His argument can be summed up in a nutshell—one system for the rich and another for the poor, and the devil take the hindmost.

Mr. Lewis: I am sorry that I interrupted the hon. and gallant Member before he had finished opening his argument. All I want to say is that I believe that in this Service, as in many other services, a total monopoly is a bad thing. He must agree that we should not care to have one-party Government. We have the Government and the Opposition. Therefore, it might be reasonable if, besides the National Health Service, we gave some encouragement to the private health sector.

Commander Pursey: While the hon. Member was making his speech I was unable to understand what his argument was about. After his last interruption I am even less clear about it, because it has nothing to do with the subject of the debate.
I rise to add my protest to the many which have been made by my hon. Friends, although not one has come from the Tory side of the House. I protest against these monstrous and unnecessary new charges for essential requirements under the National Health Service, which was originally free to all. The Bill increases the charges for dentures and spectacle lenses, but there is another important point to be considered. The Minister is out to obtain power to vary the charges in future by way of regulations and not by the introduction of another Bill. He would have no trouble with us if he wanted to abolish the charges Much nonsense has been talked by hon. Members opposite of his power to abolish. I can assure them—and here I am speaking only for myself—that he will never have any difficulty with the Opposition if he tells them that he wants to abolish the National Health Service charges lock, stock and ruddy barrel. We would be 100 per cent. with him on that. There is no question of his doing that, however.
He went this far only because he wants to make further increases. Then, instead of having a Second Reading debate on a Bill from four o'clock until ten o'clock, with the further Committee, Report and Third Reading stages, there will simply be a Prayer against a regulation, which will come on after ten o'clock, so that the debate wall be limited to an hour or so. To pretend that this Measure is taken to bring this part of the scheme into relation with the other is mere camouflage, like many of the other things he has said.
The increases for prescriptions, dentures and spectacle lenses are monstrous, not only because of the individual items but also because of the total amounts involved and the cumulative effect of several other reductions in the income of those who, though in the lower wage group, are not entitled to National Assistance. In spite of all the statements about the average wage being £14 or £15, many people are still earning only about £10 a week. They consequently have difficulty in obtaining the necessities of life, especially in view of the increased rent charges and other items, and the newly increased charges for National Insurance.
One of my constituents wrote to me as follows:

I think you would be interested to know of the contents of a National Health Service prescription which I received this week for my baby. 'Tablets: One to be taken four times a day.' My chemist had only five left in stock, so for these I had to pay 1s.
She paid 1s. for one day's supply. These tablets were about a quarter of the size of the ordinary aspirin. She does not say whether she asked the chemist if she could have the balance by going along to him the next morning, and I do not know whether the balance would have amounted to fifty tablets, or what it would have been, but it was a case of sheer robbery by the chemist. She goes on to say:
Also on the prescription were a small bottle of medicine and a tiny tube of ointment for which I had to pay 1s. each.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I can understand his point if, somewhere in the prescription, there is going to be reference to an optical appliance, but unless there is the hon. and gallant Member is out of order.

Commander Pursey: I was simply building up my argument about the prescription charge without debating it at length. Then I wanted to take the case of dentures and spectacles.

Mr. Speaker: I shall be content if the hon. and gallant Member will leave out the medical part and deal with dentures and teeth.

Commander Pursey: I will cease to discuss the prescription. I will simply say that this lady made the point that her husband is a bus conductor:
and after he has paid his N.H.S. stamp each week we cannot afford,
for dentures, spectacles and other charges,
such luxuries as doctors' prescriptions. I hope that something can be done to stop the Tories from killing us all off.
I want to deal briefly with the increased charges for dentures. If the Minister is claiming that one can get a complete set of upper and lower dentures for £5—the new maximum—instead of £4 5s., I can assure him that he is quite wrong. He is talking nonsense. He is not giving a true picture of the situation. To start with, when the patient goes to the dentist he pays £1 for examination and treatment. Three


months after fitting, the National Health Service allows for re-examination for relining, which costs another £1. That makes the new total £7, and not £5. I challenge either Minister to argue that a person can get a complete set of dentures for less than £7. I will give way if either Minister will take me up on that point.
It may be argued that with two dentures there will be no more charges, but that is not strictly true. In time the dentures may again need attention or even renewal.
I wish to take the example of one full upper denture provided for a constituent of mine. Last summer he required extractions and one new upper denture. The scale of charges was, 1, 2 or 3 teeth £2; 4 to 8 teeth, £2 5s.; more than 8 teeth, £2 10s. Actually, his denture had 13 teeth and he was charged £3 5s. though why the extra 15s. I do not know. I am giving the figures from the Ministry document.
He was also encouraged to have a 5-tooth lower denture replaced to match the upper one. The charges were, examination and treatment £1; dentures, £3 5s.; examination and relining three months later £1—making a total of £5 5s. After a further three months he was entitled to his six months examination and two X-rays and scraping, etc. One filling was defective and had to be drilled out and replaced. So another charge of £1 was made for this treatment. The result was that in the first six months this man paid £6 5s. He still has some of his own teeth which will cause further trouble and expense to him in the future.
This idea of the Minister and of Tory Members of Parliament who argue that these charges represent only 1d. or 2d. or even a few shillings is just nonsense. It took the mutiny of Invergorden in 1931 to bring home to the Admiralty that naval married men and their wives were budgeting in pennies; and one of these days the Tory Government, if they go on with this campaign of attacking the sick, of attacking the near-blind, of attacking those who need dentures and who are budgeting in pennies, will create an explosion which they will be unable to control. No hon. Member opposite who has spoken has a clue about how

the £10 a week man and his wife and children live today.
In future every patient requiring a new pair of dentures will have to pay these new charges of £4 15s. 0d. instead of the present £4 10s. 0d. Moreover, these same expenses may be involved in respect of his wife. There is always that chance. This total of £4 10s. 0d. for a single denture is a lot of money for poor people with a low wage. As has been said by hon. Members on this side of the House it will result in failure to use the scheme, to increase ill-health caused by defective teeth and consequent ill-health which may have a far greater effect than is appreciated.
I will now deal with spectacles, I am more conversant with them even than dentures, and I know one or two things about dentures. What we need is a Private Member's Motion on the subject of dentists and dentures and then we shall be able to "spill the beans" about them. A year ago, on 27th February, I moved a Private Member's Motion on the subject of the Supplementary Ophthalmic Service. I have no intention of repeating the speech which I made on that occasion, or even parts of it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]—Hear, hear, hear. I can say that. The reason is that it stands for all time, and, though I say it who should not, it was a good speech on the ophthalmic service. It stirred up a lot of trouble and drew attention to a lot of rackets.
My present argument about spectacle charges is that, again, the Minister is not giving the full picture about the increases. The idea is that charges can be increased only by means of a Bill introduced in this House. Admittedly, that is true regarding lenses but it is not true of frames. Whenever the trade considers that it has a case for increasing charges it is put to the Minister for his approval or otherwise. A year ago the charge for a 524 H.J. frame such as I am wearing was 10s. 3d. According to the "Statement of Fees and Charges for the Testing of Sight and the Supply or Repair of Glasses" published by the Stationery Office, price 9d., that 10s. 3d. has since been increased to 10s. 8d.
At present the price of lenses, including bifocals, is 10s. each with 10s. 8d. for the frame, making a total charge of £1 10s. 8d. for a pair of National Health


Service spectacles. For the first time, bifocals are now to be charged extra—another imposition on the low-wage earner. Let me deal with the argument of the Parliamentary Secretary that the individual who gets bifocal lenses has the equivalent of two pairs of glasses for the cost of one. So what? The manufacturer produces the equivalent of two pairs of glasses for the cost of one.
I am prepared to agree that there is a little more expense over bifocals, but let me make the point that, before he was prevented from doing so by the provisions of the Opticians Act, which I am not criticising, there was in Uxbridge a free-lance optician producing spectacles, including bifocals, at half the price of the National Health Service spectacles. So there is a big racket in the production of these spectacles, and if the Minister dealt with it he could more than secure his saving from the manufacturer, particularly in large orders, instead of on individual orders by individual opticians.
If these new charges are approved, bifocal lenses will cost £1 each, double the previous price, and the present £1 10s. 8d. for a pair of National Health Service spectacles like mine will be increased to £2 10s. 0d. Consequently, it will be all the more necessary for the Minister to arrange for increased publicity to ensure that the public fully appreciate what they can obtain through the National Health Service and so keep down their expenses and not be rooked of their guineas by opticians.
The sight test is free and the lenses will be £1 10s. 0d., or £2 0s. 0d. if they are bifocal. The snag is the frames. There are three methods of obtaining spectacles. One is by a completely private arrangement, having a private test, private lenses and private frames, with the sky the limit in the amount of guineas which have to be paid. I hold no brief for people who wish to throw their money away in that way and pay twice the value of the frames at the rate of, say, 15 or 20 guineas for their spectacles.
The second method of obtaining spectacles is to use the National Health Service scheme throughout—test, lenses and frames, which I have already described. The full cost will be 35s. plus, or 50s. plus for bifocals. What is

not fully appreciated is that with complete National Health Service spectacles there are reduced charges for replacements and repairs for both lenses and frames. That is lost if one goes outside the scheme.
The third method of obtaining spectacles is what is known as the hybrid scheme. That is, National Health Service lenses at the fixed price previously given and private frames, again with the sky the limit in guineas. There opticians exploit the financial advantage of the patient being able to get National Health Service lenses at a low price.
Anyone who decides on private frames is not only rooked by unnecessarily high prices, but also he loses the advantage of reduced National Health Service charges for replacements and repairs and has to pay the full repair charges at the mercy of the optician. The Ministry refuses to accept any responsibility for hybrid spectacles even with National Health Service lenses and local executive councils refuse to deal with any complaints about them.
Last year, in the debate to which I have referred, the Parliamentary Secretary made the point that there had been very few complaints about sight tests and about opticians. Of course that is so, but what is the number of private transactions in frames? It could be fifty-fifty; it could be one-third, or two-thirds; we do not know and cannot find out. It could be guessed at, but for all those spectacles which are made with private frames, the Ministry and the local councils refuse to accept complaints, and that is where the majority of complaints arise. The idea put over in the House last year that there were very few complaints and that everything was "fine and dandy" is another misrepresentation.
Opticians bamboozle patients even into discarding National Health Service lenses and thus exploit the free National Health Service sight test with high-powered salesmanship for private lenses, and so take advantage of the Service. The Minister might consider that, if both private lenses and a private frame are decided upon, the whole transaction should be private and the patient should pay for the sight test. That would be one way of cutting down expenditure on the Service without overcharging low wage-earners. As an example of high-powered salesmanship over lenses as


well as frames, I quote a statement by an optician:
If you do not feel happy with the look of your specs, I suggest that you discuss it with your optician because you may find he will be able to reshape and transfer your lenses to a frame that is really becoming.
That means to reshape National Health Service lenses. This raises the question, are National Health Service lenses tampered with and patients thus forced out of the Service scheme into a private transaction? Has the Minister considered these recommendations about lenses and frames? I again quote from the statement:
A short face needs a shallow frame; long faces look better in deeper frames. … 
Look along the benches opposite at the long faces which need deeper frames. The statement goes on:
It is easy to cater for anyone with an oval face. … 
There are two or three on the benches opposite—
They can wear one of the new, rather oblong, squarish frames that are so fashionable, with very broad sides.
Are they altering spherical National Health Service lenses to square lenses because round lenses cannot be fitted into square frames? The statement continues:
There is plenty of scope for variety with the colour of the frame; one can relate it to the hair, the eyes or even the clothes. Generally, I like to put fair people into darkish-toned glasses and dark-haired people into either lightish or medium, or even bright colours. With evening dress I prefer an indefinate colour … 
Needless to say, this is a statement by one of the dispensing opticians. These are the plumbers of the trade who do not test eyes but get the prescription from a doctor and provide National Health Service lenses in exorbitantly priced private frames. The speaker was Penney Whit-taker in Woman's Hour on the B.B.C. Light Programme, and this was reported in the Listener of 2nd February. Yet opticians are forbidden to advertise.
I ask the Minister what steps he will take to stop this high-powered salesmanship and exploitation of National Health Service patients over lenses and frames. The more important question is, did the Ministry consider increasing the range of lenses as well as frames in last year's survey, and when is the new range of

frames to be announced and displayed in this House as the old range was displayed last year? I shall not go on to debate the merits of the better frames, and so forth. It is possible to produce a better range of frames, particularly for young children, for practically the same charges as are made now. There is no reason why there should not be better National Health Service frames for the ordinary patient as well as for children.
The challenge to the Minister and to opticians is in the fact that for years Woolworths have sold a quarter of a million spectacles annually—and the price was 6s. 9d. If that is divided into the cost of the lenses and frames, we find that for each lens, sale price, the cost was 2s. 3d., and for the frame the cost price was 1s. The frame had the same hinges as a National Health Service frame. By mass production, it ought to be possible to produce National Health Service frames for a very few shillings.
Despite all the criticism and publicity last year in the debate on the ophthalmic service, and a long series of Questions, opticians still do not show in their windows the full range of National Health Service lenses and frames. They do not show the notice nor inform patients that the sight test is free, that lenses which were £1 will now be 25s. and that all the remainder of fifteen or more guineas is for the frame, which is simply costume jewellery. Nor do opticians state the National Health Service charge for frames, which is only 10s. plus, and that a pair of National Health Service glasses need cost only 30s. plus.
Therefore, I wish to ask the Minister what new action he intends to take about these serious new charges. It is not the increases. It is the totals. He should produce a new notice and ensure that it is displayed where it can be seen, in dentists' waiting rooms and opticians' shops, to show patients what they are entitled to under the National Health Service.
To sum up, the result of these increased charges will be to force more married women to go out to work and take jobs which men should have and also to leave children at home unattended when they should be attended, which will increase juvenile delinquency, probation work and recovery services. All this will be caused for a paltry saving of


£1¾ million by the Minister of Health, which may well be largely offset by an increased charge on the Home Office Vote for juvenile delinquency and, later, further crime.
Moreover, the reduced use of doctors, dentists and opticians will result in increased ill-health, absence from work and reduction in production. What does this add up to? An increase in sickness and other benefits for unemployment and so on, so that the loss may even exceed the gains. The whole procedure is another Tory Government move to force down the standard of living of the lower-wage group and to force more and more poor people to the means test of the National Assistance Board for the essential requirements of their health, teeth and spectacles. The whole thing is quite monstrous and a disgrace to a Tory Government in this great country of Great Britain in what are supposed to be the affluent 1960s.

7.22 p.m.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I hope that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey) will forgive me if I do not follow him, certainly into the mutiny of Invergordon, for two reasons. First, I was not there at the time. Secondly, you, Mr. Speaker, would probably rule me out of order if I did.
However, I go a long way with the hon. Member on one or two of the points he raised. It is true that opticians are extraordinarily reluctant to display National Health Service frames in their windows. The answer is obvious—other frames cost more. If he has the power, my right hon. Friend would be well advised to compel opticians not only to display Health Service frames, but also to draw the attention of patients to the price which they have to pay for those spectacles.
I know of many instances of people going to fairly reputable opticians and the matter going by default. It is not that patients are not shown the frames. It is perhaps that they do not fully realise that there is a great deal of difference between the National Health Service frame and the frame that can be supplied at an extra cost. I hope that something can be done about that.
We on this side have our views, and we are just as sincere in them as hon.
Members opposite are in their views. My memory takes me back to working in hospitals before the war. One knew then that one of the greatest fears which any family had was illness, whether it was sight or anything else. The fear arose from the fact that the man was insured, but his wife and dependants were not. The same is true in America today. Many people will not go for essential medical treatment, whether it is for spectacles or anything else, simply because they fear the cost. That was true in this country before the war.
I do not think that that is so today. In the 1960s there is a great changing pattern in our economy. We cannot possibly compare these cuts, as some hon. Members, from genuine motives, have compared them, with workhouse conditions and various things like that. I do not think that those are fair comparisons. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East made a very valid point when he drew attention to the enormous sale of spectacles which Woolworths used to have. I have always believed that spectacles should be sold only by opticians, because a man's sight can be irreparably damaged simply because he goes to a non-qualified person and obtains spectacles, such as picking spectacles from a line of them on a counter at Woolworths.
When I was a small boy I used to see queues of people at the counter choosing their own lenses and frames. I hope that in future the Minister will see fit to bring in a Measure—Regulations or a Bill—which will cover this point. I am sorry that it cannot be covered in this Bill.

Mr. W. Griffiths: It must have escaped the hon. Gentleman's memory that this practice is now prohibited by law under the Opticians Act, 1958. When the appropriate Regulations are laid before the House, such practices will cease.

Dr. Glyn: Although the practice is illegal, it is still fairly widespread. Although the Act has been passed, it is not observed in the letter of the law. I hope that the public's attention will be drawn to what the hon. Member has so correctly said.
One of the great advantages of the Bill is that it gives the Minister some powers of marginal relief. I do not deny that


there is a category of person for whom any additional charges would be difficult. That is the person who is just under National Assistance level. I understand that it is possible in the Bill, as in all Bills, for the National Assistance Board to give relief to that very category of person. In that respect, I welcome it. Further, the Bill will give the Minister the power in future to put the emphasis in the case of dentistry on what I believe to be the more important side, namely, repairing the teeth, especially in the case of young children. The power to vary is contained in the Bill. I hope that my right hon. Friend will have time to bring that point out.
Turning now to the general issues, this is an increase in cost to the patient. Everyone dislikes paying. I dislike paying. Like the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, I have a perfectly good pair of National Health spectacles. I am delighted to have them for nothing, but I could well have afforded to pay for them if I had wanted to. There are many people in the same position. We should look at it in the wider context.
The cost of the Health Service is rising. We have to provide for the increased cost somehow or other, either by charging for drugs—we are not permitted to discuss that today, though I should like to make some comments about it—or by some other means. The salaries of doctors and nurses and the cost of conditions of service are all mounting. Our object should be to endeavour to produce a Service second to none in the world and to continue building, not only the hospitals, but also on the domiciliary side.
I am certain that in the years ahead. and not in the too distant future, my right hon. Friend will use every endeavour to ensure that the Service is expanded and increased. I am not entirely satisfied that throughout the Service there are not many fields in which an equal saving could be made. I support the Bill, but I still think that other economies could be made which, if they were discovered, would enable us once more to spend much larger sums on the whole of the Service in general.
I am not at all sure that in the 1960s it might not be a good thing for those who can afford to pay to pay—and I want to make it very clear that people

who could not afford it should not pay—an increasing amount for this Service. For that suggestion I have one reason only—by doing so they could make the Service better for those who cannot afford to pay. We may well have to look, in the 1960s—when people are very much better off—for other ways by which those members of the community who could afford it would subscribe towards the Service.
Economies could be made in the expenditure on drugs, and in very many other ways, but I cannot enlarge on that now as it is outside the scope of this debate. I hope that the debate will bring to a large number of people the knowledge that, for those who are just below National Assistance level, there is available this marginal relief by means of which, so I understand, some sort of repayment can be obtained.
I hope that as a result of economies we may see in the future an increase in that part of the dental service that is so vital—the school dental service. There is no question that the mother, and proper care and attention in the early days of childhood, build up the child's teeth. It is quite useless to come along for false teeth—"snappers", or whatever one likes to call them. It is far better to spend the money in the child's early days at school. That is when the foundations of good teeth are laid.
In addition to the economies that are to be effected, I hope that we shall seek further economies so that this Service may be ever expanding, giving benefit—and I mean this very sincerely—to those who need it. There are other directions in which economies can be made. For instance, we cannot deny that there is some waste in hospitals. That should be examined. At the same time, as I say, we should go further, and see whether there are not other spheres in which we can impose charges on those who can afford it and use the resultant money to provide an even bigger and better Service.

7.33 p.m.

Mr. W. Griffiths: I have two special reasons, Mr. Speaker, for being grateful for catching your eye. First, I had the privilege of serving Aneurin Bevan when he was Minister of Health. Secondly, I am an optician by profession—a profession about which certain remarks have


been made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey), though I shall not deal with them now.
Running through the speeches of hon. Members opposite have been repeated examples of the curious love-hate relationship that the Conservative Party have for the National Health Service. They have, and they always have had, a kind of Jekyll and Hyde attitude towards it. As we know—and as we keep reminding them—they voted against the first great National Health Measure on Second Reading and again on Third Reading. They were, therefore, totally opposed to the principle of the National Health Service. However, when it very quickly became clear that many people, including Conservative supporters, were all for the Service and its benefits, they suddenly switched their ground and claimed that they had invented it.
We have had this afternoon speeches, like that of the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn), recommending the hiving off, as it were, of medical care into the private sector—

Dr. Alan Glyn: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. My hon. Friend who recommended that has left the Chamber. What I recommended was that within the Service those who could afford to pay for part of their treatment might well be advised to do that, thereby making available more money for the extension of the Service. That is not a private service.

Mr. Griffiths: I do not think that there is much difference between what the hon. Gentleman says and what I say. He must realise that that would inject into the Service a two-tier system. It would mean that those who could afford to buy service would be entitled, in the private sector, to hope for a better service.

Dr. Glyn: That is the whole fundamental difficulty about the service at the moment. We have consultants looking at patients in public hospitals, half of whom are private patients and half public. I say that it would be far better if a patient went into a public bed, paid part of the cost and had the same service and treatment.

Mr. Griffiths: I must not pursue this matter, Mr. Speaker, or I shall be in

trouble with you, but, briefly, I am totally against having part-time consultants in the Service. They should either be in it full-time or should engage entirely in private practice.
Returning to this love-hatred relationship in the party opposite, I have never forgotten the observations of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, the present Colonial Secretary, who once stated his attitude to charges. He has always been a very close associate of the Minister of Health. He described his attitude towards charges in these words:
I have always believed in charges, not only on financial grounds "—
not only, that is, when the economy is supposed to need them, as has been the argument today—
but I have always been in favour of charges on social and ethical grounds.
Those were the words of the present Colonial Secretary, and were the Minister of Health now present I believe that he would endorse those sentiments.
I have been looking at the speeches made by the right hon. Gentleman when he was a back bencher, and particularly at one made in 1951, when there was before this House a Bill to impose charges for dentures and spectacles. I can at least agree with him when he said that that former Measure marked an important change of principle. He said:
What this Bill does is to take the National Health Service out of the class of unconditionally free social services.
He recognised it to be a fundamental change in principle—as it was.
We had perfectly reputable reasons for bringing forward that Bill, although I did not vote for it. I was strongly against it, as was Aneurin Bevan and others of my hon. Friends. After all. however, that was only for a limited period. By this Bill, the Government take powers making it unnecessary for them even to introduce a Bill to vary the charges. They will be able to alter the charges by regulation at any time without the need for new legislation.
What is the Minister's justification for that? He says that he is underpinning the Service. He argues that without these charges we cannot have the hospitals. He boasts of the greatly expanded capital programme for hospitals. We all recognise the need for a


vast expansion of the hospital building programme, but I suspect that this is a bogus argument.
I will illustrate it by reference to the City of Manchester. In 1955 the then Minister of Health announced in his capital allocations that a new hospital was to be built in Manchester. The newspapers told us that £2½ million had been allocated for the new hospital. People said, "Now we are to get the new hospital in Manchester, and about time too". But this was six years ago. The other day, I asked the Minister of Health when he expected the hospital to be completed, and his answer was. "In 1967", twelve years later. Not a brick has been laid.
I suspect that these plans of which we have heard for a vastly expanded hospital building programme will be like so many of the other programmes in past years. They will remain on paper so long as the Government refuse to do anything about controls in the building industry, stopping people going in for building office blocks, and all the Test. Incidentally, this delay already will cost the taxpayer £500,000. The Minister said that when the hospital is completed, if it is completed in 1967, it will cost £500,000 more than the estimated £2½ million of 1955.
The charge for bifocal lenses is a particularly mean one. What the Government are doing is to double the existing charge. At the moment, the charge is £1 whether the patient has single-sight lenses or bifocals. It is now to be £2 for bifocals, admittedly a more expensive lens to produce. There is some merit in what the Parliamentary Secretary says, that bifocals are the equivalent of two pairs of spectacles, but it is the fact that people who need either two pairs of spectacles or bifocal lenses are people at least over 45 years of age. What the Government are doing is to inflict upon older people the greatest burden in the ophthalmic charges. The Minister is doubling the charge for that section of the community least able to bear it.
As my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) said today, now that the patient will have to pay 25s. instead of £1 for the ordinary single-sight pair of spectacles, he will pay overwhelmingly the greater proportion of

the cost of the whole transaction. I will illustrate it in this way. The vast majority of spectacle lenses, about 75 per cent., I think, cost, at prices fixed by the Ministry after negotiation with the industry, about 10s. 6d. per pair. This amount is recoverable by the optician from the executive councils. The price for the vast majority of lenses is 10s. 6d. The optician has his dispensing fee—a euphemism for profit—of 24s. The 24s. added to the average cost of a pair of lenses at 10s. 6d. makes 34s. 6d. Out of that the patient will pay 25s. This means that the contribution from the Ministry of Health will be very considerably reduced.
For some years now the Ministry of Health has been deliberately hiving off a growing proportion of the ophthalmic service into the private sector. Both my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East and the hon. Member for Clapham have referred to the need for opticians to exhibit National Health Service frames to patients. I agree that they should. I do so in my own practice. If the Minister wants to do something about it, he can, as he perfectly well knows, make regulations to compel the optician to do so. So far he has refused.
The frames in the National Health Service range are the same frames that we began with in 1948. It is all very well for my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East to talk about high-pressure salesmanship. I practise in a working-class area of Manchester. Over 50 per cent. of the people who come to me will not have Health Service frames at all. They think that they are unattractive.
What we ought to have done a long time ago was to bring within the schedule of National Health Service frames some modern, attractive, up-to-date frames, with prices fixed in the schedule. This would have stopped any tendency to racketeering on the part of the disreputable elements about whom my hon. and gallant Friend speaks. However, the Minister does not such thing. He and his Department are cleverly content to leave the old-fashioned frames in the scheme because the Ministry is perfectly happy for the patient to go out and pay for private frames. The burden on the Ministry is


much lessened thereby. This is why I say that, quite apart from the charges, the Ministry has for several years now, by a deliberate act, been channelling off into the private sector an increasing amount of work which should properly have been paid for through the National Health Service.
This party is united in its attitude towards the National Health Service. We are unanimous in following the inspiration of Aneurin Bevan who saw the National Health Service as a great service available to everyone on the basis of need, without the intrusion of financial barriers. It is our determination to campaign against the Government and to expose their mean and miserable attitude towards the people of this country. We shall see the results of our campaign in by-elections and municipal elections later this year. The Minister of Health and the Parliamentary Secretary will go down in history as people who have done a little more to destroy something of which the whole British nation was once very proud.

7.44 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: I find it difficult to follow the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. W. Griffiths) in making these charges a matter of principle. I know that he quoted words of my right hon. Friend, but they were said the first time that charges were made. If the principle really does exist, which I beg leave to doubt, it has been breached before. After all, I am sure the hon. Gentleman will admit that, presumably, what was fair in 1946 is fair now. The size of contributions—

Mr. K. Robinson: Not at all.

Mr. Kershaw: If I may continue my line of thought for a moment, I shall return to the observations of the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson). Presumably, what was fair in 1946 is fair now, and the same proportion of the Service should be paid for by contributions and charges as is paid now. If it was reasonable to put a ceiling on the Health Service in 1951 and impose charges then, in exactly the same arithmetical circumstances, if I may say so, it is fair today.
We have heard from hon. Members opposite that it was the Korean War

which caused the charges to be imposed. That is not true. The ceiling of £400 million was fixed before the Korean War was thought of and before there was any inkling of it. It is said by the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange and by the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) that the charges were imposed for only a short time and, therefore, what was done was something which people could agree to for a short time, though against their will, in the hope that it would be changed later.
In my view, knowing the way public affairs are conducted in this country, that was a sop put into the Bill at that time in order to induce a reluctant party to vote for it. The principle has been breached in the past, and I believe, therefore, that we are not doing anything now which has not been done before in similar circumtances.
We are only attempting to hold current costs at the present level. This is exactly the same operation to which we were driven before when current costs reached a comparable figure. We are doing so, not in order to undermine the Service but to be able to devote a large proportion of the resources which can be devoted to the Service to the capital costs which we know will be very expensive in future. In their turn, the capital costs, as large capital costs are designed to do, will give a better and, in a way, cheaper and at least a more efficient service in the long run. I am sure that no one would deny that.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange referred to a projected hospital in Manchester. He cannot have heard the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister when he was introducing the Bill in which he set out the achievements in hospital building during the last few years. He said that 190 major schemes have been announced. Thirty-one have been completed, 27 are in progress and 140 are in various stages of planning. This includes 36 new hospitals. By any standard that is a formidable achievement, and, as building costs go on rising, that standard will be maintained only by devoting a larger part of our resources to building in the future than we have done in the past.
It was not the Korean War which caused the increased charges to be made. The cause went back before Korea. It


was what Aneurin Bevan called the cataracts of medicine being poured down the British throats. There is no doubt that the current costs of any scheme can be the enemy of the future. That is a conclusion to which both parties in their day have been driven.
The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North asked why in these affluent days we cannot avoid imposing these charges. Our answer from this side of the House is quite simple and short. If the days are affluent, more people can afford to pay for what they are getting. This party is, in principle, against general subsidies, which we believe are unnecessarily bad. We are restrained, by sheer costs and also by a feeling of inappropriateness, from giving to rich people as much as the poor people require

Mr. K. Robinson: Before that last sentence, the hon. Member went a little further. Is he enunciating the doctrine that in his view and that of many of his right hon. and hon. Friends, a social service should be constructed on the basis that everyone who can afford to pay for any benefit should be required to pay for it?

Mr. Kershaw: Within the limitations of hardship, that is so. I am sure that I would even carry the hon. Gentleman with me by saying that if a person can afford to pay something towards a service it is perfectly right and just that he should do so. We have been over this argument about subsidies so often that I hesitate to weary the House with it. In the food subsidies the usual argument was that it was absurd to subsidise the bread of the millionaires and the Ritz Hotel. We have the same argument now. No doubt if we concentrate the resources of the country on those who need them most, we achieve a higher standard of satisfaction and a higher standard of living and are more merciful and appropriate in the treatment of the problem before us.
I do not think that the sneers which we constantly hear against the affluent society carry a great deal of weight in the country. I believe that people who feel that they are in a position, through their own efforts, to pay for some or all of the services which they need are proud to do so. I think that mostly the

sneers come from Left-wing intellectuals who do not undergo any particular physical hardship themselves.
I now turn to the matters which we have before us. Let me deal with the dental charges. The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North quoted The Times of last Thursday in which it was said that the object of these changes is not to improve the Service. I think that the hon. Member and the writer in The Times overlooked that there will be an improvement in the dental arrangements, because expectant and nursing mothers and children under 16 will be able to get dentures free of charge in future. This is not the case at present. Furthermore, they overlooked the change, which has been commented on, in the type of spectacles which will be made available to school children after they have reached the age of 9.
The amount of money with which we are concerned is £26 million or £3 million. Perhaps in relation to the total cost of the Health Service it is not very large, but in common with some other of my hon. Friends I express a certain anxiety about those who are just outside the National Assistance limits. The Minister has said that anyone who at any time is in receipt of National Assistance is entitled to ask the National Assistance Board to meet the extra cost of dentures and spectacles. No doubt that will be very helpful, but the people who are just outside the limit and who up to now have never been to the National Assistance Board, either because they knew that they were not qualified for assistance or because of a reluctance to do so, will suffer to a certain extent because of the increased charges. My right hon. Friend has said that he will keep a very close eye on how this goes. I have no doubt that he will do so.
The first thing which can be done—and I hope that it will be done—is to give greater publicity to the possibility of people getting help from the National Assistance in paying for the extra appliances which they require. Despite the number of years that the National Assistance Board has been operating, it is astonishing to find that there are still people who are ignorant of their rights. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House have had experience


of this, even in the last few months. In rural areas particularly, where the matter of going to the National Assistance Board is not so easily arranged and where people perhaps are not aware that the National Assistance officials will come to see them if only they let them know that they need assistance, we need a campaign to make sure that people are fully aware of their rights. I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend will tell everyone who can benefit in this way how he can receive the help which we all want him to have.
I do not believe that these charges are a breach of the principle of the National Health Service. I believe that, like the others which we shall have to consider in the coming days, they will in the long run redound to the great benefit of the people. They will find that they have a better Health Service, one which is better equipped capitally and one in which we can have the same pride that we have in the Service today.

7.59 p.m.

Dr. Horace King: If I do not answer the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) in detail, it is because my hon. Friends the Members for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) and Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater), like myself, have sat in the Chamber ever since half-past three yesterday afternoon vainly endeavouring to follow every hon. Member who spoke from the Government benches. I should be distressed if I were to prevent my colleagues speaking in the debate after they have waited so long. I will deal with only one point that he made.
We agree with him that everyone who can afford to pay for a service should do so. But to that we add two other principles. First, people should pay according to their capacity to pay. This is fundamental to us. And, secondly, people should pay for the benefits of the Health Service whether or not they are sick.
When the present Minister of Health resigned from the Treasury, many of us admired his courage and sincerity, even though we were absolutely opposed to the principles for which he resigned his office. Knowing the right hon. Gentleman as we do, we knew that his return to the Government would by no means mean that he had sacrificed any of his

principles and succumbed to a desire for office, but that he was maintaining his principles and had persuaded the Government to accept some of the things on which previously he had resigned.
The whole country has been waiting since the right hon. Gentleman's appointment for the Measures we debated yesterday and the one that we are debating today. Knowing the right hon. Gentleman, we are not surprised that he has turned out to be a hachet man of the Service that it should be his duty to defend and that the Bill we are discussing today, like the two Measures that we debated yesterday, takes us further away from the basic principles of the Health Service.
I regret that. There are other social service Ministers whom I have watched on the Government side who seem to have caught inspiration and to have been caught up by the humane work of their Departments. I think, for example, of the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. Apart from his unfortunate graduated pensions scheme, which will hit the workers early in April, the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance has achieved a fine set of reforms in the great pensions Department. The present Colonial Secretary, after a lamentable start at the Ministry of Health, did some excellent work there.
The new Minister of Health, however, starts by putting back the clock in his Department. His motto seems to be:
Thou shalt not kill; but need'st not strive Officiously to keep alive.
In this House, we usually think of the Treasury as the villain of the piece bullying the spending Ministers. Today and yesterday, the rô les are reversed and the only begetter of these new reactionary changes in the National Health Service is the Minister who should be resisting them if they have come from the Treasury. Great tributes were paid from both sides of the House today and yesterday, and rightly so, to our great National Health Service, which is the pride of the world. It is worth interpolating here that it is served loyally and enthusiastically by voluntary workers, in great numbers, of all political parties. On some other occasion, we might discuss the virtues of this great experiment in socialised medicine, as the Americans call it. Tonight, however, we debate a serious divergence of opinion.
Surely, the basic principle of the Health Service is that there should be no artificial barrier between the patient and the best remedy available. All that is best—the best hospitals, the best medicine, the best nursing, the best surgical skill, the best medical skill, in ophthalmics and chemistry—should be available to all who need them, and the only test should be whether a patient needs the service.
In the past, one of the barriers was undoubtedly money. Many people of my generation and of my father's generation went without medicine and treatment, without proper spectacles and without any dental care, simply because they could not afford them. Many who did afford these things had added to the anxiety of illness the additional anxiety of wondering where the money was to come from to pay for the remedies or the appliances that they needed.
Today and yesterday, the Government's tactics are to play down the present bitter struggle which exists between both sides of the House over the new charges. The Government either do not know, or profess not to know, that last night's anger was real and that it was based on our personal experience and on experience of the kind of constituents whom we represent in the House of Commons, on the one hand, and, behind it, our own deep Socialist convictions, which the party opposite does not share, on the other. There are thousands of old folk who have got their first properly tested and properly fitted spectacles under the Health Service instead of buying them cheaply and nastily from Woolworths.
Of course, the National Health Service has to be paid for. The most fallacious argument that was advanced yesterday and during today's debate as justification for the Bill and for yesterday's reactionary measures is that they will check the rising cost of the National Health Service. The cost of the Service, however, has nothing to do with today's Bill. Both sides agree that the Health Service must expand and that we must provide the hospitals, medicine, treatment and spectacles and teeth that are to be provided under the Bill and that we must provide medical, ophthalmic and dental care for our citizens.
The battle of which the Bill is an indication is over who is to pay and how we are to pay for expenditure on the Health Service, which will continue to increase Which ever way we pay for it. I refuse to believe that we cannot have the hospitals that we need unless we impose a new swingeing penal poll tax of 10d. a week on everybody, that we must make the diabetic sick and the chronic sick carry an even more savage penal tax for being ill and that we must collect the miserable £1¾ million to £3 million that the Bill seeks to provide from those who need treatment, teeth or spectacles.
The cost of the National Health Service is not the issue. The cost to the Treasury is what the fight is about. We are fighting in this debate, as in yesterday's debate and in all next week's debates, about how we shall share the cost which, both sides of the House admit, is necessary and how we shall share it between richer and poorer citizens and between healthy and weak citizens. Although the Minister is particularly responsible for the Bill, all he is doing in his reactionary measures is carrying on spectacularly and in a particularly inhumane way a policy which the Tories have been pursuing ever since they came into power. This is merely part of the process. It has nothing to do with health, but is a means of redistributing the national income as between the richer and the poorer people.
Today's Bill, last night's Ways and Means Resolution, the flat-rate charge and the prescription charges, which we shall debate next week, all fall into line at the end of a series of Measures—the handing back of nationalised industries to rich people, the Rent Act, the racket in land, the high interest rates, the cutting down of direct graduated taxation and the stiffening of flat-rate taxation in Budget after Budget and Measure after Measure. All these things widen the gap between the richest and the poorest of our citizens instead of doing what ought to be done, narrowing the gap still further. They will help to secure for those who live by owning a much greater share of the national income than those who work for wages.
If this Measure tonight is only a redistribution of a mere £3 million it is part of the steady process which has been


whittling away the Welfare State as far back as the Tories dare cut it without losing the support of the millions of ordinary people who return them to power at each General Election. Every flat-rate contribution—and this is a flat-rate contribution of a particularly evil kind—is an instrument of this redistribution. I am not very good at figures, but I should like to give the House two significant sets of figures. In 1950, direct graduated taxation amounted to £2,000 million. These figures are from Government publications. The flat-rate contribution in taxation was £436 million.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but he should keep more closely to the Second Reading of the Bill.

Dr. King: With respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I am not endeavouring to wander away from the point. I am endeavouring to place the £3 million flat-rate taxation of this Bill in relation to the change in the rates of flat-rate and non-flat-rate taxation which has taken place during the last six years. I shall not argue the point at great length. I want to make simply passing reference to it and I hope that I may be excused.
In 1950, there were £2,000 million raised by direction taxation levied according to income and flat-rate contributions of £436 million. In 1959, the figures were £2,758 million in direct taxation, an increase of 35 per cent., and various flat-rate contributions had gone up to £898 million. While the graduated tax element had gone up by 35 per cent., the poll tax element of the contribution which we are making to the Health Service and National Insurance had gone up by 110 per cent., and this without the new flat-rate increase of April, without the increase of 10d. that will be made as a result of last night's Measure, and without the £30 million already imposed for teeth and spectacles and medicine by the earlier charges and the sum of £3 million that we are adding tonight. This is clearly a redistribution of national income in favour of the richer people. We on this side of the House believe that people ought to pay according to their capacity to pay.
The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. A. E. Cooper) said early this morning that

he thought that the new charges had reached the limit. We believe that this poll tax element, this special tax that we are putting on sick people who need medicine or appliances had already passed the limit of social justice. I confess that I am an absolutist and would take the whole cost of the Health Service out of taxation. I believe that would be the fairest way and that all in this way would pay according to capacity to pay.
It is true that we compromised when we set up the National Health Service, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) said in her moving speech yesterday, and that we introduced an element of poll tax. Any poll tax is bad, for under it the widow with a large family pays the same amount as the rich newspaper owner, the rich land or property owner and the rich speculator—the people who have already had such benefits from this Government that they do not mind the extra cost that the Bill will impose on their spectacles.
But if a poll tax is bad because the same amount represents a burden on the poor person which is very different from that which it imposes on the rich, a poll tax on health itself is even less justifiable morally. Charges that we make on prescriptions, teeth and spectacles are a painfull poll tax on unfortunate people. We punish people for having to have their teeth out. I should have thought that having teeth out was punishment enough inflicted by the Almighty, without having that punishment added to. I am reminded of Butler's "Erewhon", where the sick people were gaoled and sinners were given treatment. The millionaire will pay under the Bill exactly the same extra charge as all who come under the Bill except the very poorest people, the 1½ million people who are protected by the other great achievement of the first Labour Government, the great National Insurance, and National Assistance coverage.
As one of a number of hon. Members who sat throughout yesterday's debate to address himself to the much more general question than the specific items involved in this Measure, I wish to protest against the gagging which prevented many of us from speaking early this morning. Today's debate is confined to a much


narrower field, but these £3 million, like yesterday's £12 million on prescriptions, and like the £50 million on flat-rate contributions, are part of one particularly mean exercise by a Government who know that they will be hurled out of power if they try to demolish the Welfare State and destroy the Health Service which they tried to prevent from being established when Labour was in power. It is a Service which commands the admiration, love and affection of people in all parts of the country. The Government, however, will go on steadily nibbling away at the Health Service and the Welfare State—and this is one nibble—as long as they can persuade enough voters to return them to power.
We have been reminded in the debate of the Act which we passed two years ago designed to prevent people from indulging in the practice of getting spectacles for which their eyes had not been properly tested—spectacles from Wool-worths. I well remember the Woolworths lobby on that occasion, but the House was almost unanimously of the opinion that we wanted people to get their spectacles in the best possible way.
One of the effects of this Bill, however, is to undermine the very things that we tried to do in that Act. Above all, it is an undermining, not an underpinning of one of the cardinal principles of the whole Health Service, and one of the principles of the good society, which is that the rich should help the poor, that the strong should help the weak, and that the healthy should help the sick.
In this case, what ought to matter to the Minister of Health is whether a man needs spectacles or dentistry, not whether it should be paid for by that person himself. I bitterly regret this Bill very much, as I regret those measures which we were discussing yesterday. I am glad that our party will fight them solidly on every possible parliamentary occasion.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. R. W. Elliott: I share quite a number of things with the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King), including the fact that I, too, have been sitting here during Parliamentary hours since 3.30 p.m. yesterday. It may be that we both sit too far back to catch

your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and that we ought to move further forward on the benches on a future occasion.
I also share the hon. Member's desire to see the best possible National Health Service and, consequently, I approve what we are doing now in increasing these charges, the contributions and the prescription charges which we are to discuss next week. I agree with these measures, because I am anxious to see the Service continue to expand. But I come to a point of disagreement with the hon. Member when he suggests that the whole cost of the Health Service should come out of general taxation.
I propose to say a little about preventive medicine, and I hope to speak about the care of the teeth of the young and the care of eyes, both of which are in the sphere of effecting the greatest possible saving later on within this Service. In answering the hon. Member's point about the cost coming out of general taxation, it is my honest belief that to get the maximum understanding of this Service there should be some amount of individual contribution.
On another occasion my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health said that contributions to the Health Service should be considered in the context of the whole economic position of the country and of the earnings of those who pay the contributions. We should not be too hide-bound in our approach to the future cost of the whole Health Service.
In the general context of seeking the best possible Service, it may well be that in future there will be better methods of ensuring expansion. I believe that we should look at the relationships of the social services within the general aim of effecting the most efficient society.
The extra costs imposed by the Bill will be fairly generally borne—not least by the employers. It is generally appreciated that increased costs of all kinds almost automatically help to lead to a general appeal for increased wages. It may well be that in future years the suggestions made yesterday and today about the possibility of a social service tax may be found to have a great deal in them.
We have the German experience to study. There, employers are meeting directly a great amount of social service


charges. In the years ahead, we ourselves may have to look very hard at the part which employers are playing within the economy. It may be that we may need to use our employed force in this country to better advantage. It may well be that more intensive thought should be done by the employers about more intelligent employment. The German system of greater social service contributions by the employers may well be worthy of consideration.
In common with the hon. Member for Itchin and practically every other hon. Member who has spoken yesterday and today, I seek to effect the greatest possible easing of the burden of the new increases on those who are least able to bear them, but I suggest that here the Government are doing the maximum possible. In my constituency I have a great number of people who can be described as "proud pensioners". I share the hope that the propaganda of this debate will be great in its effect, and that we shall be able to bring home to everyone the fact that if they are in need they should seek the assistance—which is to hand.
There is much that could be done in publicising preventive medicine. Constant research into preventive medicine can do so much to improve the Health Service in the years ahead. In my own City of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, as long ago as 1947 Sir James Spence initiated a very valuable research, which is still going on. It is called the "Thousand Families Survey". A thousand families were chosen and have been studied since the birth of children during 1947.
The survey was founded in the need for an accurate report on the incidence of illness in infancy. The lessons are many and varied. Housing conditions are an effective factor on happy and enlightened family life. The first report about the research emphasised not only the need for better medical facilities, but also that these things must essentially be linked with moral and spiritual values in family relationships.
This report also stressed the importance of the infant welfare services. It is unfortunate that still only a minority of mothers use the infant welfare centres. Again, it is my hope that the propaganda value of this debate may help

to publicise those centres. We should encourage them. We need more of them, not only in dealing with health generally but in the care of teeth and eyes. We need to consider them more in terms of a closer connection between them, the domiciliary services and the general practitioner. We need to do more in persuading all mothers to use these centres.
They are excellent places. My wife, with her two children, uses our local centre to great advantage. Here we have an excellent means of saving future costs in the care of teeth and eyes.
In preventive medicine there seems to be need for increased research into accidents. I recently had the sad experience at looking at some very young children some of whose eyes were closed and covered with scars. I went to the Burns Ward of the Fleming Memorial Children's Hospital in Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Here were to be seen innocent victims of unguarded electrical appliances, unguarded fires, or the teapot—which seems always to have been too near the edge of the table. In a developing National Health Service there is need for an increasing study of prevention, which, in turn, would bring an increasing possibility of a widening service. The nation deserves the very best Health Service it can afford. Yesterday and today we have moved firmly towards obtaining it.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: For those who believe in a real National Health Service, if there could be anything more alarming than the measures which the Minister is introducing it would be found in almost every one of the speeches which we have had from the other side of the House during this debate. We have had a whole series of speeches from back bench Members opposite not merely applauding what the Minister is doing but revealing that they do not understand the principles of a National Health Service at all. We had a speech from one hon. Member a few minutes ago in which he said that these charges do not involve any breach of principle at all. I can understand the argument that because of economic circumstances we may have to impose charges although we do not like doing


so, but for anyone to say that the imposition of these charges does not imply any infringement off the principle is completely to misunderstand the whole basis on which the National Health Service was introduced.
The Minister is much more clever. He knows what he is doing. That is proved by the quotation cited by my right hon. Friend earlier when charges were first imposed and when the Minister said that this was a fundamental change in principle and that he welcomed the change. His hon. Friends have become so familiar with these charges being imposed on the Health Service that they do not understand that their imposition is injuring the whole basis of the Service and that it is something quite different from the original conception. The Minister knows the difference, because he is now carrying into fulfilment the philosophy about the National Health Service which he has always preached. He has always been against the Service.
The other thing that is so curious about this debate is the extraordinary way of running our affairs. We have had almost six hours of debate on this Bill which involves the £3 million extra attraction of money from the patients. Last night we were discussing an extra £50 million which were to be raised and the Government, in proposing the Measure for raising that sum, thought its introduction worth only a five-minute speech. The whole thing is out of proportion. It partly arises from the deliberate action of the Government in trying to separate the discussions on the National Health Service, and the charges on the National Health Service, from the discussions about the Budget generally.
There has been a lot of talk about 1951 and I will not continue raking that over. However, in 1951 there was at least the difference that when the charges were imposed they were announced at the time of the Budget and the Measures imposing the charges followed in Bills produced after the Budget. That made a considerable difference because it meant that Members of this House could at least compare the charges that were being imposed, and the measures that were being taken under the National Health Service, with the other figures which the Government were proposing.
No doubt precedents can be produced to show that former Governments, even Labour Governments, may have introduced Measures of this kind prior to Budgets which involved forms of taxation. The Minister has, at least, had the candour to call it "taxation" when it is taxation. I can understand that there may be precedents, but it is still an abuse of the procedure of this House because that is what a Budget is for.
One cannot talk about priorities in the National Health Service and whether it is right that this £3 million should be raised from people when needing spectacles or their teeth to be dealt with. One cannot discuss whether a priority is correct unless one has the other priorities in perspective. If the Minister had wanted this to be dealt with in order of priority he would have asked that this Measure be introduced after the Budget and not before so that we could then compare the proposals which the Government are making for raising money from contributions or from sick people as proposed in this Measure, or from the Measure involving prescriptions which we shall have later. We should then have had a proper comparison.
The Minister speaks of priorities inside the National Health Service, as he is entitled to do, but the much bigger issue that this House has to decide is the whole question of priorities in the Budget as a whole. It is impossible for us to discuss that here because the Budget will be introduced later. In this way the Minister is not doing his job of protecting the National Health Service. We do not think he was put there for that purpose anyhow, but if he were doing his job of protecting the National Health Service, even for the purpose of trying to carry through the hospital programme about which he claims to be so enthusiastic, he should have said to the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "I think it would be much better for my Bills for increasing taxation to come after the Budget and we will see how the House of Commons like it". If the Minister had said that he would have got much more money from the Treasury. Perhaps he was not put there to get money out of the Treasury. I suppose he is the first Minister of Health to be popular with


the Treasury, but that is not a very great achievement of which to boast.
The significant part of his speech yesterday—and it refers precisely to what we are discussing today—came in a long passage about the National Assistance Board. He made great play with it and he said that people did not know how to use it properly. We have had many speakers from the benches opposite emphasising how more people ought to go to the National Assistance Board when in hardship.
The Minister was talking about people who were not normally covered by the Assistance Board regulations but who, according to his announcement, would still be able to get assistance in respect of spectacles, caring for their teeth, or other provisions affected by the new charges, and he said:
It is in the public interest that these arrangements should be as widely known as possible. They make it clear that for a great many people who may be involved, by these charges, in some degree of hardship, but who are not within the normal limits of the National Assistance Board standards repayment of the charge can be obtained. The more widely that is known the better."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 8th February, 1961; Vol. 634, c. 442.]
Of course, in one sense it is better that it should be widely known that people can get the money if they cannot afford to meet the charges, but here is a clear declaration from the Minister that what he is seeking to do, and what he will achieve, is to drive people out of the ambit of the Health Service and into that of the Assistance Board.
The Assistance Board is an institution very different from the other social services which were established or expanded by the Labour Government. Everyone wants to see the Health Service expanded in the sense that it is made larger and more able to deal with more people. Everyone wants to see the National Insurance Scheme expanded so that it covers more people and covers them better. But the purpose of social legislation should be to do away with the National Assistance Board. Its whole object was that it should be a safeguard for people who could not be covered by the other forms of insurance and social services.
It is appalling for a Minister deliberately to set out, which is what the Minister is doing, to drive people

out of his care into that of the Assistance Board and to step up the numbers receiving National Assistance when every authority which has studied the matter has said that the object should be to provide such a system of social services and such a form of society that nobody should have to go to the Assistance Board.
I pay full credit to the way in which many of the Board's officers do their job. but however courteous they are and however delicate and dignified they may be in discharging their duties, one can never escape from the fact that their work involves an invasion of the privacy of the people concerned. They cannot help it, but the Minister of Health is deliberately saying that he wants more people to be sent to the Board and that he prefers that under his operation of the Health Service more people should have to go to the Assistance Board.

Mr. Powell: Prefers it to what?

Mr. Foot: Prefers it to doing his job of trying to protect the Health Service. How many people would have been saved from the Assistance Board had the right hon. Gentleman fought for this £3 million? He has been fighting not on that but on the other side. He has been fighting for the Treasury, and that was why he was appointed.
I do not blame only the right hon. Gentleman. I blame the Prime Minister, because it was an elaborate kind of joke for the Prime Minister that he should appoint as Minister of Health one who had always been savagely opposed to the Ministry of Health and the Health Service and that at the same time he should appoint to a spending Department an hon. Member who had made his reputation by attacking public expenditure. I have no doubt that the Prime Minister and his cronies had many joyful evenings cracking jokes about it. It shows the Prime Minister's flippancy in dealing with this great national service. It shows that he does not care a snap for it that he should appoint an hon. Member whom he knew perfectly well to be dedicated to the idea of changing the Service into something entirely different.
When the Minister gets up and says that he is a devoted friend of the National Health Service, and when some of his hon. Friends say how much they cherish


the Service, I am reminded of the case of the lawyer in the nineteenth century who claimed to be a great defender of the British Constitution. It was said of him that he was prepared to sacrifice a part, if not the whole, of the Constitution in order to preserve the remainder. That is what the right hon. Gentleman does in respect of the National Health Service.
He is prepared to ditch and destroy the National Health Service in the pretence that he is protecting it. But he is not protecting it, because he understands what he is doing. But the others do not even understand what they are undermining. They do not seem to understand the principles of the National Health Service which they are destroying under this Bill and others associated with it.
There are three main principles of the Service, all of which hon. Gentlemen opposite deny. The first principle is that the resources of the community should be mobilised by the community to help the sick. Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not believe that. They have been shedding parts of the National Health Service, as was shown by my hon. Friend in the case of the ophthalmic services.
The second principle is that everybody should get the same treatment. We shall get the best service for everybody only when we provide the same service for everybody. What is happening now is that the two-tier system is already operating in the Service, and pretty well every speech made by hon. Gentlemen opposite emphasised that they wanted to press this much further. That was the whole moral of the case outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee). It was not solely an individual case. It was showing how hon. Gentlemen opposite are trying to drive this division into the National Health Service, and the right hon. Gentleman is in favour of it, and always has been.
The third principle of the National Health Service, a medical principle, is that prevention is better than cure. If we removed from this Service the whole taint of commercialism and profit-making the doctors would be the more able to apply themselves to the real problem of keeping people healthy. Jonathan Swift said many generations ago that in his day doctors invented imaginary dis-

eases for which they also invented imaginary cure. This is now an industry, a vast industry in this country, and the right hon. Gentleman is quite prepared to let it go on. He does not mind if that undermines the Service, because he does not believe in the principle that all the people should be included in the same Service. That explains why he does not believe in it because if the principle works successfully over the whole field of dealing with the people's health, then why not extend it over many other things?
The original attacks on the National Health Service were not made because the Service was failing. They were made because the Service was proving a success. When the Service was introduced, its opponents said: "It will collapse. It will not work. Patients will not come in. Doctors will not play. The thing will not operate." When that was disproved and the Service worked, they said, "It is too successful. We must not allow this to go on. We must not allow it to be shown and proved that by collective action, by making one common service, by applying Socialist principles, we can do the job better." That is what they often complain about in talking of Socialism generally, They said it about the Russians. Before the Russians started they said that their system would never work. When it worked efficiently they said, "It is much too dangerous."
The Minister of Health is very astute and intelligent. He has had many no doubt justified tributes paid to his character during the past few days, but he would have been more candid if he had said right at the beginning that he was carrying out the philosophy that he had enunciated ten years ago, that he hated the National Health Service, and that he hated the system under which we were to have a universal all-embracing National Health Service on the principles laid down by Aneurin Bevan. If he did not hate those principles, why did he attack as fiercely as he did for many years the Minister who made the National Health Service? He did it because he is an enemy of the National Health Service. He ought to have the courage to say it.
This makes so absurd the Minister's statement, at the end of his speech, that what he wants to do is to command enthusiasm throughout the whole


National Health Service and to recruit the support of all the elements in the Service to make it work successfully. That is what he says he wants, but the measures that he has taken will injure that possibility. They will make people feel sour about the Service. The best service he could do to make the National Health Service a great success would be to resign before he carries these measures any further.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Ian Fraser: It is a real pleasure to me to follow the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot), because his family bears a very honoured name in Plymouth, and in the constituency which I have the honour to represent. He has great political experience of life in that part of the country. But he and I are sundered by a very large gap in our respective attitudes to the National Health Service and to the charges which it is the object of the Bill, to raise, with certain well-conceived exceptions.
It seems to me that the underlying question about the Bill—and what has split both sides of the House both today and yesterday—is whether it is right to raise charges of this kind. If we want to obtain a sensible answer to this question we must ask ourselves whether such charges are right in our present society. The Opposition would go further than that and would ask, "Is it right to have charges at all? "To go into that question would be to go a little wide of the terms of the Bill.
I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey) is not in his place.

Commander Pursey: Oh yes, he is.

Mr. Fraser: He said in terms that hon. Members on this side of the House simply do not understand how those who live on £10 a week or £500 a year really live. Much of the debate which has raged over the last two days has been concerned with that point. It is simply not true that hon. Members on this side of the House are one of two nations. It may once have been true, but it is not true today. It is wrong to say that we do not know how large sections of the people live. If we did not, we should not be here. I know that I certainly should not.
I was brought up in two big industrial towns in the North, but I now represent a constituency in the far South-West, and in that constituency I spend a great deal more of my time among people who do not vote for me than I do among those who I am sure do vote for me—and I am extremely proud and glad to do so. The real division between the two sides of the House arises over the question of the kind of society we are living in, and that must be vital to the other question whether it is right to raise these and similar charges.
We cannot get away from the fact that the average industrial earnings are now about £750 or £800 a year. That is to say—

Mr. Thomas Swain: Is the hon. Member aware that there are 400,000 men in the mining industry who earn less than £10 a week, and that that industry is the basis of our national economy?

Mr. Fraser: I am aware of that and I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I represent a constituency where the average level of earnings is considerably below the average in the rest of the country. I know the problems which arise from that, and how careful one has to be when using an average figure.
My point is clear. This is not a static situation. The average earnings have been rising steadily over the years under Governments of both parties. I hope that the average will go on rising in the mining industry and I am sure that it will go on rising in my constituency which is very different from the mining constituencies. But, even at the level at which wages now are, the average represents the "middle-class" income as it used to be termed. I hate these terms, working-class, middle-class and upper-class, but this represents, for the purposes of rational thought, the middle-class income as it used to be termed.

Mr. John McKay: I have been looking over the figures of the Revenue Account and I am wondering whether the hon. Member is aware that 7,400,000 people, after paying tax, have left a wage of only £6 17s.; and that after they have paid their insurance their net money is £6 6s. Is the hon. Gentleman


aware that those people really represent about 11 million people, when one takes into account their wives and children, and that that is equal to about one-fifth of the population? We are proposing to impose these extra charges on those people. Could not the money be obtained in some other way?

Mr. Fraser: I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, which assists me to make my point. I entirely accept that his figure represents one-fifth of the population, but we have to consider the other four-fifths as well and that is the whole problem. In this matter we have a dynamic situation in which the prosperity of this country is steadily rising. It will not be long before average earnings in industry are over the £1,000 a year mark. Once more—

Mr. A. V. Hilton: The hon. Member said that many workers are in the middle-class salary range. Does he consider that farmworkers are in that range, bearing in mind that the national minimum wage for farmworkers is £8 9s. 0d. a week?

Mr. Cyril Osborne: What are their average earnings?

Mr. Fraser: The average earnings of farmworkers are considerably more than that, as any hon. Member who is a farmer will know.
We have to find what should be the pattern for the National Health Service in relation to these charges, in a society in which the general level of prosperity is not only already high—in what we would call the middle-class—but steadily rising, as it is for others in the lower income levels as well.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins: What is the average wage of the hon. Member?

Mr. Fraser: The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale accused my right hon. Friend of being an enemy of the National Health Service, but there is no ideal pattern for the National Health Service laid up in Heaven. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite have no prerogative to say what the National Health Service should be in its ideal form. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are trying to work out what that form should be—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The hon. Member voted against it twice.

Mr. Fraser: We are now trying to find a form which will suit the society in which we live and in which it will work. Those are two important considerations.
I have very little time and must rush on with my speech. I can go by my own political experience only—short as it is. It is not my experience that the people of this country as a whole dislike standing on their own feet—as it has been called in this debate—that they dislike paying their way and paying for the advantages and benefits they have. I do not believe that as a people they dislike that. Although I absolutely accept that hon. and right hon. Members opposite are completely sincere, I do not believe that these measures which the Government are taking will be anything like so unpopular in the country as hon. Members opposite obviously believe they will be.
I think it true, as has been said time and again on this side of the House today, that there is a class of people about whom we have to be very careful indeed. Those are the people in the range just above the National Assistance Board scales earning something around £10 a week, such as the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull, East mentioned. I confess to my right hon. Friend that when I was considering—as any hon. Member, on either side of the House, must consider—what attitude to take towards these measures, I had to search my conscience very hard when I thought of that band of people.
We certainly should not, and I do not think we would, under-estimate the social pressures which would come from disregarding that very considerable section of the population. A number of hon. Members opposite have made that point tonight. The truth is, and must be, that none of us, on either side, can say with any sort of conviction how these proposals will affect those people. I can see nothing for it but rigorously to inquire into individual cases.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: When, in connection with the Health Service, the hon. Member is applying this principle of people paying when they can afford to do so, will he agree that if that principle is to be applied among


the lower-income groups he should apply it also to the higher-income groups, where standards are also rising and where vast subsidies are given every year without the application of any means test?

Mr. Fraser: I see no objection to that principle, although I am surprised that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) who, after all, is a Socialist should raise it. To me there is nothing wrong at all with what he has advocated, that we should try to avoid subsidising the higher-income groups.
Returning to my point, I think that the most rigorous investigation of individual cases will be needed in this lower-income group. That is what I am asking of everyone who writes to me about it in a controversial sense today, although I have not had much of that kind of correspondence.
I end by saying this. We on this side of the House are charged with the task of governing the country. We have got to find a pattern for the National Health Service which will not only suit it but which will work. It has to suit the dynamic and increasingly prosperous society at all levels. Why I am poles apart from hon. Members opposite is that I do not believe that their ideal pattern for the National Health Service would either suit or work. I do not believe that they succeeded in making it work when they were in power. That is why they were led into adopting measures similar to those which we are advocating. I do not make too much of that.
There has been a great deal of talk about the affluent society, but, just because this society is becoming increasingly prosperous, we have to find a pattern for the National Health Service which will work. I believe that that pattern is of a Service buttressed by modern and reasonable charges in relation to the actual state of society at any given time. I believe that this Bill and the measures connected with it are a reasonable framework in which such a Health Service can be, and will be, built up.

9.0 p.m.

Mrs. Harriet Slater: I sat here all yesterday and again today wondering whether we are to have

a National Health Service, because it is obvious from the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite that they have no conception of what a National Health Service means. I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) spoke tonight, because he spoke as passionately as the man whom he has followed, the founder of the Health Service, would have spoken.
After the speeches made yesterday and today by hon. Members opposite we at long last know that there is a fundamental difference between ourselves and the Tory Party—not only on the Health Service, but on all the social services. This is borne out by their latest pamphlet, which bears the marvellous title, Principles in Practice. In it the Tories say that in this expanding and prosperous society one big trend of Tory opinion is that we have to make a distinction between the freedom of the individual and what they call the paternalism of the State. It is the same thing as they put on the posters at the last three general elections.
All the speeches by hon. Gentlemen opposite showed a trend towards the gradual whittling away of the paternalism of the State in the social services for which the State should be responsible. The Tories go on to say that in this age, because children are bonnier and people are healthier, we must look again at the question of the means test, because—they put it in brackets—some people who have the social services mis-spend the provisions made for them.
As I said yesterday, we have heard this story over and over again. We heard it yesterday from the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers), and we heard it repeatedly from the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health when she was at the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. Very likely, she will continue to use the phrase.
I will try to answer some of the things said last night by explaining why we on this side are bitterly angry. We do not treat this matter with glee. We have not treated yesterday's and today's debate—nor shall we treat next week's debates—with a sense of being full of glee and fight. We treat this matter very seriously and with righteous indignation, because we know from long experience how much we have had to fight, not only during the last


ten years, but during the last thirty or fifty years, for the Health Service that we now have.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) and I serve on the Stoke-on-Trent City Council. We had to fight for a maternity and child welfare service, a school dental service, a school medical service, and for a service to care for mentally-retarded children. We had to fight the Tories, who did not want us to spend the money. We know that in their hearts they have always been against the Service. They dare not do away with it now, but in their heart of hearts they do not like it.
We have the fear, and it is re-emphasised by the Bow Group pamphlet, that they wish to attack not only the Health Service, but education. They put it quite clearly. The Minister of Health spoke of building up the hospitals, but in this pamphlet the Tories talk more and more of making people pay to go into the hospitals. Is that social service? No. As has already been said today, the Tories are once more seeking to create two classes of people—those who can afford to pay, and those who cannot.
It is hard to reconcile a Bill that increases the charges for dentures and spectacles with what one reads in this morning's newspapers. We read in the financial columns of the vast sums made by the breweries. That money is not made by our people—it is made by the Tories. I do not talk about the people who drink the brewers' products, but of those who make their money out of them—they are not necessarily the same people. Day after day the speculation goes on, yet, while it is going on we cannot, in an expanding society—the Bow Group calls it a prosperous society—find £3 million to make sure that everybody needing dental or optical care gets it.
It is said that those who can pay do not want these services. Well, they do not need to have them. One hon. Member said that his wife went to the welfare clinic. She has no need to go. She can contract out by going to a private doctor. What we want, however, is to make sure that these services are built in to the very structure of our society.
We want to be absolutely certain that in no case, in any way at all, is there any danger of people being prevented from getting the attention they ought to have.
Earlier in the debate, I interrupted on the question of the supply of children's glasses. Why should a child under nine be forced to wear metal-framed glasses? Children of that age are very conscious, once they start to go to school, of their looks, and of what other people think of them. We should start instilling into them a sense of respect and dignity. Why should we force them to have steel-framed spectacles? In any case, the saving will be such a miserable amount.
There is only one thing in the Bill that I find really encouraging—the expectant mother, the woman who has had a child within the last twelve months, is not to be charged for dentures. We fought for that for years; that the expectant mother should be cared for and should be able to have her teeth attended to. That is vitally important. The hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary spoke of preventive treatment, but that begins when the woman is carrying her baby. It does not begin after the baby is born. This is why it is essential that she should have milk, orange juice and the necessary vitamins not only after the child is born, but during those earlier months for her own protection and that of the child.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) read some very telling statements from the Guillebaud Report which set the priorities. Dentures and glasses should be one of the first priorities in the Health Service. Time and time again, committees are set up to inquire into what should be done. It seems a terrible thing that we should not now be able to find enough money, £3 million in a full year, following the recommendations of the last Guillebaud Report, to make these provisions free for all, instead of imposing the ridiculous charges now suggested.
Unfortunately for me, I have to wear bifocal glasses. If I may say so, it is very much easier to wear bifocal glasses than to have to fumble for reading glasses at one moment and for ordinary glasses the next. But, because I and thousands of others have to wear bifocals, we shall


have to pay more money for them. This is a niggling saving—that is the only word I can find—at the expense of welfare and the status of our Health Service. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) made a cheap sneer about the only people opposing these proposals being, in the main, Left-wing Socialists. All kinds of Socialists have spoken today, but the fundamental fact is that we are all Socialists. [Laughter.] The hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary should not laugh. She has worked in the welfare services. She ought to be on this side of the House, not that.
This party, because of our past experience—I hope that no one will laugh at this—because of the poverty which has eaten into our hearts, because of our knowledge of the struggles that we and others have had, and because of our fear of what is expressed very clearly in the new Bow Group pamphlet—which we cannot and will not forget in the speeches which we shall make during the next few months—looks upon this Bill and the other provisions which the Minister is putting forward as unworthy of people calling themselves citizens of Great Britain.

9.14 p.m.

Mr. Denys Bullard: I apologise for not being present throughout the whole of the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater). I know her very broad sympathies. I have been present during nearly all the debate and I hardly expected to be called after all. I apologise for returning in the middle of her speech.
I am an admirer of what my right hon. Friend wants to do with the National Health Service, particularly concerning the expansion of the hospital service. I do not think that it can be said that he is an "axe man". Rather the reverse is the case. I am not, however, a great believer in the payment for prescriptions, glasses and the other charges which it is proposed to increase—[Interruption.]—I hope that hon. Members opposite will give me a chance to speak. I was saying that I am not a great lover of the prescription charges and the charges which are being increased by the Bill. At the same time, I know that finance for the Health Service has to be found, and I am with the Minister in increasing

the charges, but only provided I am satisfied that hardship cases are adequately dealt with.
This matter has been touched on by several hon. Members. I am not entirely happy about the arrangements for those who are already within the National Assistance scales, nor about the arrangements for those who are near to the National Assistance scales. I believe that this problem is especially acute in the rural areas, where it is a very great undertaking, for people who are not well and who may be old, to go through the performance of attending the doctor's surgery, the optician, the National Assistance Board and the Post Office.
Since all these funds come from the same source in the long run, although I know that the National Assistance Board is a separate institution from those we are considering, I cannot think that it is beyond the wit of man to devise some scheme whereby this parade from one office and place to the other can be avoided. I sincerely hope that my right hon. Friend will give very serious consideration to means of avoiding this parade.
If that requirement is satisfied, I cannot think that the charges proposed in the Bill and those to be imposed elsewhere will bear unduly hard upon the rest of the community. I am particularly concerned about the fringe area of hardship cases just above the National Assistance level. I cannot see how the system operates. Does the patient first initiate the process of drawing a refund of the charge? If so, how does he go about it? Does he first have to go to the Board or to the doctor?

Mr. William Hamilton: He buys a farm.

Mr. Bullard: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman should wish to provoke me on the question of farm subsidies. The hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) also referred to the fact that some economies might be made in the farm subsidy instead. I would remind hon. and right hon. Members opposite that one of the subsidies particularly concerned is that for welfare milk.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have great difficulty in relating welfare milk to optical appliances.

Mr. Ballard: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I should have thought that milk had a great bearing concerning teeth and that it might, therefore, be relevant. I will not pursue the matter except to say that it can always be suggested that the money for necessary advances in this service and in other services should come from other places. I shall support my right hon. Friend, but on condition that he makes more easy the processes which I have deplored and which I have tried to describe.

9.21 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: I have heard all but two of the speeches which have been made today and I listened to a good many of the speeches made yesterday. The one thing that comes clearly out of these debates is that when we talk about the National Health Service, Members on the Government side are talking about something quite different from that which we on this side refer to as the National Health Service.
In talking about this great National Health Service, hon. and right hon. Members on this side have in mind a service that will be available to the people at the time they need it and for the purpose for which they need it and irrespective of whether they have the cash at the time to pay for the service which may be required. We believe that this national State Service should be financed according to ability to pay—most certainly—but we propose that that should be done by having it done out of taxation. That is the only sure way of providing that this Service will be paid for according to ability to pay. Incidentally, to have the Service paid for in that way is the only sure way of ensuring that it will be put at the disposal of our fellow citizens at the point at which they require it.
It will be generally recognised—it certainly is on this side of the House—that there has been no better investment in post-war Britain than the National Health Service. I have listened to speeches, including the speech from the Minister, about the desirability of having a viable Health Service. I do not know what he is talking about. He has not described chat to us. I hope that when the Secretary of State for Scotland replies—incidentally, at twenty minutes to ten; that is when I shall sit down—

he will tell us what the Government mean by a viable Health Service.
How do the Government measure the social and economic benefits of a healthier population? How do they put into the balance the saving in human life and misery by the great advances in our Health Service over the years by the saving in life and by the considerable reduction in deaths from killing diseases? How do they measure that? We have been proud of the health of our children in recent years. In these years since the war, visitors from many countries have come to these shores and have commented on the extraordinary health of the children. This is due to our National Health Service. How do the occupants of the Treasury Bench weigh all these matters in the balance when considering whether we have a viable Health Service?
I have heard speech after speech today from the Government side about the desirability of encouraging preventive medicine. What about the welfare foods? What about the cod liver oil and the orange juice?

Mr. Speaker: I may be doing an injustice to the hon. Member, but I did not hear those speeches. Had I heard them, I should have been compelled to point out that the substance of the Bill is optical appliances and teeth.

Mr. Fraser: You put me in some difficulty, Mr. Speaker, because I was endeavouring to reply to the debate. I am bound to say that I had thought that there were no better preventive health services than this extra nourishment given, with the aid of subsidy, to the children. This has now been taken away as part of this operation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] I find that I have another note about something that might be a little out of order, Mr. Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, but only out of order because Mr. Speaker is in the Claim. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members opposite should have heard some of the speeches made and points to which I was about to reply, but I must now take up another point.
Some hon. Members opposite, and particularly the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw), argued that because we are all better off now we can all pay individual charges. I want the Secretary


of State for Scotland to let us in on what is the Government's appreciation of what we should be doing. Is it the Government's policy or their philosophy that because we are better off and because our national wealth is greater we do not need this State Service that we have had before and that in the circumstances we should now get rid of this apparatus of a centrally provided State Service and allow each man and woman to purchase the service he or she requires?
It has been said over and over again today that we should give help only where help is needed, and hon. Members have been so pleased to see that provision is made in the Bill to give help where help is needed. It has been said today—and I hope I shall not be out of order in referring to it—that years ago when we had food subsidies it was right to get rid of them because they meant that the millionaire dining at the Ritz was enjoying the subsidies too. Hon. Members opposite know that agricultural subsidies today amount to as much money as the food subsidies of twelve years ago. They defend them on the ground that they cut down the cost of food, but they never admit now that the millionaire at the Ritz is having his dinner subsidised by the agricultural subsidies.
The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. K. Lewis) anticipated that these charges were temporary. He was sure that they were, and he referred to the provision in Clause 2 (2) which states:
The power to vary a charge conferred by this section shall include power to direct that it shall not be payable.
I wonder whether the Secretary of State will tell us that it is the Government's intention that these increases in charges or these charges at all are temporary. [An HON. MEMBER: "Till the next election."]
The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford said that he wanted a completely free Health Service financed by graduated contributions. I merely say "Good", and the best graduated type of contribution is a contribution by taxation. But I am afraid that he and many of his hon. Friends went a little astray, having made a point like that, in saying that there should be a considerable extension of the private sector to

enable those who can afford to buy their own services to go outside the State Service and do so.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) dwelt at great length on the proposition that 70 per cent. of the cost of this Service should be mat from Exchequer funds and that that had been accepted by all Governments. That is absolute nonsense.

Mr. Webster: rose —

Mr. Fraser: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman just now.

Mr. Webster: rose —

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman who has the Floor of the House does not give way, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) must not remain on his feet.

Mr. Fraser: The Exchequer contribution has seldom been as low as 70 per cent. As recently as four years ago it was 80 per cent. It is a great pity that the Beveridge Report recommended that 8½ d. of an employee's National Insurance contribution should go to the Health Service. It has never been admitted by the Opposition that the contribution by the employed person towards the National Health Service should remain in any particular proportion. We believe, on the contrary, that it should be varied and reduced.
I ask the Secretary of State to tell us why it is, at a time when the Government boast that it is increasing, that our prosperity should be accompanied by a decrease, proportionately, in the social benefits available to our people. It is within the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues that other countries, including the United States, Germany and France, which are also enjoying a considerable increase in prosperity, are finding that this is exactly the time when they can afford greatly to increase social benefits. They find that when their people are well and working they are able to make their contribution to these great services and so get the benefit of services such as health and pensions when they need them.
That is the civilised way of doing it, but the Government's policy is running contrary to what is going on in many parts of the world. What is happening elsewhere is merely following what we


sought to introduce here after the war. We sought so to order our national life that we might live more and more like one family. I thought that we were becoming more and more civilised, but the Tories have always had a longing for the jungle.

Commander J. S. Kerans (The Hartle-pools): rose—

Mr. Fraser: Tory philosophy is the philosophy of the survival of the fittest. We believe that we should pay when we are well and working, but the Tories put the burden on the sick.

Commander Kerans: rose —

Mr. Fraser: As we have listened to the proposition that we should give more help where it is most needed, and as a great deal has been said about savings, I wonder if the Government can tell us of the savings which they are to make and how they are to make them. Does it involve a saving to the taxpayer because extra charges are to be imposed? Or is there to be a reduction in demand?
Who will be discouraged from using these dental and optical services by the extra charges? It will surely be the poorer people, not the richer. It will be the people least able to afford these charges who will be discouraged from using the Service. If that is so, would the Secretary of State say whether it is a good thing? Surely this is going to be the result of this; surely this is exactly what the Guillebaud Committee said in its Report four years ago. It said that the first priority should be to remove these charges on the dental service when we had the resources and that the second priority should be to remove the charges on the optical service when we had the resources, for the simple reason that poor people are discouraged from using these services. Rich people are not discouraged. So what happens as a result is that we give help where it is least needed and fail to give help where it is most needed.
A lot has been said about advertising the services of the National Assistance Board. What did the Minister himself say in 1951 when these charges were first introduced? I quote from HANSARD:
Now from the point of view of the potential recipient, the people who are not

going to be helped, who are not going to pass this means test, are precisely, in many cases, the most deserving. They are the people, the old-age pensioners, people just on a living wage, who are going to say, ' This is a pretty stiff sum I have got to pay, but I will be dashed if I am going to the National Assistance Board to argue the case about it.' Those are the people who are going to suffer most from these charges, if we leave this method of assessment in the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th April, 1951; Vol. 487, c. 314.]
That is what the present Minister said when speaking from the back benches ten years ago.
In every speech today his supporters have been saying that justification for this Measure is that the poor can be helped by the National Assistance Board.

Commander Kerans: rose —

Mr. Fraser: I know that the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) in the course of his speech, to which I listened with some interest, said that 80 per cent. of the workers would find no difficulty at all in paying all these extra charges. All I want to say in reply to that is that official figures show that about 47 per cent. of the wage earners of this country have less than £10 a week. That is almost half our working population. Is it a serious suggestion that this half of our working population will find no hardship in these new imposts? The Minister was right in 1951. These are precisely the people who will be denied the advantage of the Service, who will be caused hardship by the provisions of this Bill and by all the other measures with which this Bill is accompanied.
I wonder whether the Ministers realise how far they are putting the clock back. Dates have been mentioned today which go back to 1945. I came to this House in 1943 and before that for seventeen years I worked in a coal mine. During the whole of that time I paid my National Health Insurance contributions and I received my doctor's services and prescriptions free. I paid 6d. a week, which brought me free treatment for my wife and family; I paid 1d. a week and received hospital services free. I had to pay no charges when I went for any of those services, and when I needed glasses I went to the approved society and they helped me to buy my glasses. Do hon. Members opposite know how far they are putting back the clock?
In the years after the war, we took those various umbrellas which different sections of the population had erected over themselves and created one major umbrella to cover the nation as a whole. The Minister of Health—I do not know why the Secretary of State for Scotland should be left out of this and not get any of the credit, but no one has paid tribute to him and all the tributes have been paid to the Minister for the great Measures he has introduced—has put a lot of holes in that umbrella which replaced all the smaller umbrellas which had existed before 1948.
The Tories have been boasting of tax concessions, amounting to hundreds of millions of pounds in recent years. After tonight's debate, they will presumably be going back to the hustings boasting to their supporters and the country at large of putting £3 million increase on the charges for teeth and specs.
I wish to goodness that hon. Members opposite would get a sense of proportion. I wish that they would realise that there are many millions of people, many of whom, no doubt, vote Tory, who are suffering hardship now because of the charges already obtaining and who will suffer greater hardship as a result of these imposts on which we shall divide in a few minutes.
I ask hon. Members opposite to believe that there are many of us in the House and throughout the country who felt terribly proud of a Service which we believed would be expanded and enlarged and improved into something of which every Britisher would be proud. As a result of the operations of this Administration, lopping an inch off here and there, as the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford said earlier, and with other countries building up their services, once again we shall be left far in the wake of other nations.

9.42 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): The debate has been puzzling. I could have understood the genuine emotion which has been evident in the speeches of hon. Members opposite were it not the case that practically every speech which they have made has been a replica of speeches made in 1952 when comparable legislation was being discussed. All the terrible things which they

said were to happen to the National Health Service and what the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) said in his moving peroration were things which were said in 1952. What has happened since 1952? I will tell hon. Members as my speech goes on, in the time available to me.
I realise, Mr. Speaker, that we are confined, so far as we reasonably can, to discussing false teeth and spectacles.

Mr. W. Hamilton: See that you keep to them.

Mr. Maclay: I will try, but if I do I will be the only hon. Member to have done so. My intentions are strictly honourable, at the start any way.
I quote the speech made by the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) in March, 1952, when, referring to the dental service, he said:
As for a charge for dental treatment, that never entered my head. I never thought that anyone could think of anything so insane."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th March, 1952; Vol. 498, c. 887.]
That was said all those years ago, but let us look at what has happened to the dental service in those years. Honourable and English Members will forgive me if I use the Scottish figures. The figures for Great Britain are comparable. In 1950, the year before charges were introduced, about 65 per cent. of the £5 million dental bill in Scotland went on false teeth and only 35 per cent. on other forms of dental treatment. In 1960 only 30 per cent. went on false teeth, and 70 per cent. went on other forms of dental treatment.
In those ten years we have had in the general dental service a most remarkable switch towards dental treatment and away from the provision of false teeth. Ever since 1951 it has been our aim to give priority to the conservation of teeth, especially those of children and adolescents because, as everybody knows, in the long run dental fitness for the nation can be secured only by providing proper dental health for the younger generation.
Scottish hon. Members will have heard of the pilot scheme on dental health education being organised in Dundee with the support of my Dental Health Advisory Committee. From this scheme we hope to learn lessons as to how best to persuade both children and parents of the best methods of looking after their


teeth from the early stages. Apart from our efforts in dental health education, it is the case that in Scotland children are receiving more dental treatment than ever before.
Since the switch away from the provision of false teeth under the general dental service began in 1951, the number of children receiving treatment has risen progressively, and by 1960 about half a million treatments were provided to children under 16 at a cost to the Exchequer of over £1 million. It is estimated that in 1950 about 120,000 treatments were provided to children under 16, so that in those ten years we had almost a fivefold increase.
This is an example of the tragic effects which the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East forecast. I am singling him out because his quotation was most striking. There is no doubt that this transfer from the provision of dentures to the provision of treatment has been repaid by what has been done over these years. It is quite wrong—[Interruption.]

Mr. H. A. Marquand: rose —

Mr. W. Hamilton: rose —

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am suffering from a double intervention. I hope that if the Minister does not give way hon. Members will not persist. I am not certain whether the Minister has given way.

Mr. Maclay: I have not, because I asked for only a short time in which to reply so to allow the maximum number of hon. Members to speak. However, I give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Marquand: The right hon. Gentleman is pointing to the increase in dental treatment for children and apparently saying that this justifies a charge for treatment. There is no charge for dental treatment for children, and there never has been.

Mr. Maclay: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said at the beginning. The point of my remarks is to deal with all the horrible things that he forecast. I am dwelling on this, because this is the only argument which has been advanced against the Bill throughout the whole debate. There

has been no other argument. I have listened to practically every speech, except those during an interval of about an hour.
The whole charge against the Bill has been made on this point. Hon. Gentlemen have talked about the destruction of the National Health Service. That is absolute nonsense. All these things were said before. The National Health Service has not gone back, but has improved steadily.
I deal now with the provision of glasses. [Interruption.] Whenever I take hon. Gentlemen up on something that matters, they do not want to listen. We must get it clear that there is no other charge against the Bill.
When the charges for spectacles were first introduced in 1951 there was an immediate fall in the use of the ophthalmic service by the general public, but this effect soon wore off. Today, more people are having their eyes tested with a view to having spectacles than in 1950, the year before the charges were introduced for spectacles. In 1950, just over 500,000 people had their eyes tested, and that number fell by about two-fifths, to just over 300,000, in 1952. I make no apology for using the Scottish figures. Following the introduction of the charges, the figure has risen progressively, and in 1960 the number of sight tests provided was 525,000. It is clear that the present charges are not preventing people from using the ophthalmic service, and I do not believe that the adjustments in the charges which are now being made will affect the upward trend in the demand for this service. In 1951, bifocal lenses were rarely supplied by that service. In those early days most people obtained two pairs of glasses. Charges in this respect are quite understandable, and have been explained by my right hon. and hon. Friends.
The point is that in relation to both subjects which have very properly been discussed under the Bill—spectacles and dentures—none of the fears forecast by the party opposite eight years ago has been realised in relation to the development of the Service. Their arguments today have no more likelihood of realisation than they had at that time.

Mr. K. Robinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the special case that


I quoted, in which, under the new charges, a person requiring a second pair of spectacles would have to pay a charge which is more than the cost to the Ministry?

Mr. Maclay: That is an extremely complex sum, I know all about it. I suggest that if ever there was a Committee point that is one.
Another charge made by hon. Members opposite is that we are erecting barriers, or heightening them, through the increase in these charges. Let me now give the relevant figures for Great Britain. In 1952, dentures were supplied to 1,568,000 people. In 1959, they were supplied to 1.653,000 people. The number of pairs of glasses supplied in 1952 was 3,700,000, and that figure is now up to 5,193,000. Items of dental treatment have risen from 6,062,000 to 9,913,000. Where is the evidence, in these figures, that these charges are harming the Service and harming people's health? Where is the evidence that any of the charges made by hon. Members opposite are valid?
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have shown considerable concern about what might be described as the marginal cases—the people for whom there might be real hardship. The Minister yesterday and the Parliamentary Secretary today explained in detail what steps are possible to prevent hardship, and I commend hon. Members to study carefully what they said. To recapitulate very briefly, the arrangements which exist now, and have existed for a long time, will continue. It should be more widely known that those who find difficulty in meeting the charges should not hesitate to apply for a refund if the payment of the charges would put them in need by National Assistance Board standards. In 1960, about 40,000 people out of 500,000 obtaining spectacles received assistance in the payment of the charges, and about 16,000 of those incurring charges for dentures or dental treatment obtained refunds.
Very simple arrangements have been worked out by the Board to avoid inconvenience to people who wish to apply for a refund, which may be made even to people in full-time employment if their commitments are such that under the Board's standards, it is felt they may need help with the charges. I am glad

to associate myself with the undertaking which my right hon. Friend gave yesterday, to consider what can be done to make these arrangements more widely known.
In answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard), if a person who is not in receipt of National Assistance applies for a refund and sends his form and receipt to the Board, an officer of the Board will visit him at his home to assess need.
We are working against time and so I do not propose to go into detail but I wish to say this. The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) referred to the image of the country. I wonder whether it occurs to hon. Members opposite what that image really is. It is one of a country which in these latter years has enjoyed a steadily rising standard of living. It is a country with a great National Health Service and a great record in education, and it has a great record over the whole range of social services. What is more, it is an image of a country which is admired because it has a Government with the courage to take steps which they believe essential to keep these social services moving forward in the way we all desire.
The trouble with right hon. and hon. Members opposite is that they are still badly out of date. The hon. Member for Stoke on Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) made a rather revealing remark. She said that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary should be on the opposite side of the House because she had worked in welfare work. Until hon. Members opposite learn that they have no monopoly in human feelings; until they learn that throughout history there have been people from every walk of life in this country who have devoted themselves to doing what is best to improve the lot of their fellow human-beings—until they learn those lessons hon. Members opposite will remain hopelessly out of date, and the nation will realise—[Interruption.]—I could go on for another half-hour but for the clock—

Mr. Marcus Lipton: Let us have the Closure.

Mr. Maclay: My right hon. Friend went through many of the other developments in the social services and in the National Health Service which have


taken place in recent years. I come now to the end of my speech—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear."]—but I wish to say that, had it been in order to do so tonight, we could have gone through a whole range of things which have happened in the years since 1951.
Right hon. and hon. Members opposite have been saying that we have been killing, hacking, emasculating the National Health Service—and a number of other expressions were used—during

those years. But, in fact, we have been creating and improving a National Health Service of which we are very proud, and I have every confidence in saying that, if the House will vote unanimously for this Bill, the same good progress will be made in the years to come as in the years since 1951.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 303. Noes 228.

Division No. 42.1
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Deedes, W. F.
Hooking, Philip N.


Altken, W. T.
de Ferranti, Basil
Holland, Philip


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hollingworth, John


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian (Preston, N.)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Hopkins, Alan


Arbuthnot, John
Doughty, Charles
Hornby, R. P.


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Drayson, G. B.
Hornby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia


Atkins, Humphrey
du Cann, Edward
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)


Balniel, Lord
Duncan, Sir James
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)


Barber, Anthony
Duthie, Sir William
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John


Barlow, Sir John
Eden, John
Hughes-Young, Michael


Barter, John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Batsford, Brian
Elliott, R. W. (N'wc'stle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Emery, Peter
Jackson, John


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
James, David


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Errington, Sir Eric
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Jennings, J. C.


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Bidgood, John C.
Fell, Anthony
Johnson, Erio (Blackley)


Biggs-Davison, John
Finlay, Graeme
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Bingham, R. M.
Fisher, Nigel
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Joseph, Sir Keith


Bishop, F. P.
Foster, John
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Black, Sir Cyril
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.


Bossom, Clive
Freeth, Denzll
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Bourne-Arton, A.
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Box, Donald
Gammans, Lady
Kershaw, Anthony


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Gardner, Edward
Kimball, Marcus


Boyle, Sir Edward
Gibson-Watt, David
Kirk, Peter


Braine, Bernard
Glover, Sir Douglas
Kitson, Timothy


Brewis, John
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Lagden, Godfrey


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. SirWalter
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Lambton, Viscount


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Godber, J. B.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Brooman-White, R-
Goodhart, Philip
Langford-Holt, J.


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Goodhew, Victor
Leavey, J. A.


Bryan, Paul
Gower, Raymond
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Bullard, Denys
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Lilley, F. J. P.


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.
Lindsay, Martin


Burden, F. A.
Green, Alan
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Butler, Rt.Hn.R.A. (Saffron Walden)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Litchfield, Capt. John


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Grimston, Sir Robert
Longbottom, Charles


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Longden, Gilbert


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Gurden, Harold
Loveys, Walter H.


Channon, H. P. G.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby


Chataway, Christopher
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hare, Rt. Hon. John
McAdden, Stephen


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
MacArthur, Ian


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
McLaren, Martin


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia


Cleaver, Leonard
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Cooper, A. E.
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Maclean,Sir Fitzroy (Bute&amp;N.Ayrs.)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hastings, Stephen
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfield, W.)


Cordie, John
Hay, John
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)


Corfield, F. V.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
McMaster, Stanley R.


Costain, A. P.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
MacMllan,Rt.Hn.Harold (Bromley)


Coulson, J. M.
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Hendry, Forbes
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Craddook, Sir Beresford
Hicks Beach, Mal. W.
Maddan, Martin


Critchley, Julian
Hiley, Joseph
Maitland, Sir John


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Crowder, F. P.
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Cunningham, Knox
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Marlowe, Anthony


Currie, G. B. H
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest


Dance, James
Hobson, John
Marshall, Douglas


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Marten, Neil




Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Temple, John M.


Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Ramsden, James
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Mawby, Ray
Rawlinson, Peter
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Rees, Hugh
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Mills, Stratton
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Montgomery, Fergus
Ronton, David
Tlley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Morgan, William
Ridsdale, Julian
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Rippon, Geoffrey
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Nabarro, Gerald
Roots, William
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Neave, Airey
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Vane, W. M. F.


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John


Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Scott-Hopkins, James
Vickers, Miss Joan


Noble, Michael
Seymour, Leslie
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Nugent, Sir Richard
Sharples, Richard
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Shaw, M.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Shepherd, William
Wall, Patrick


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Osborne, Cyril (Louth)
Skeet, T. H. H.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Smithers, Peter
Watts, James


Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Webster, David


Partridge, E.
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Whitelaw, William


Peel, John
Speir, Rupert
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Percival, Ian
Stanley, Hon. Richard
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Stevens, Geoffrey
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Pilkington, Sir Richard
Stodart, J. A.
Wise, A. R.


Pitman, I. J.
Stoddart-Soott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Pitt, Miss Edith
Studholme, Sir Henry
Woodhouse, C. M.


Pott, Percivall
Summers, Sir Spenoer (Aylesbury)
Woodnutt, Mark


Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)
Woollam, John


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Talbot, John E.
Worsley, Marcus


Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)
Tapsell, Peter
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Prior, J. M. L.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Mr. E. Wakefield and


Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
 Colonel J. H. Harrison



Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Teellng, William





NOES


Abse, Leo
Dempsey, James
Holt, Arthur


Alnsley, William
Diamond, John
Houghton, Douglas


Albu, Austen
Dodds, Norman
Howell, Charles A.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Donnelly, Desmond
Hoy, James H.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Driberg, Tom
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Awbery, Stan
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Edelman, Maurice
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Baird, John
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hunter, A. E.


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Edwards, Robert (Bllston)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Beaney, Alan
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Evans, Albert
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Fernyhough, E.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)


Blackburn, F.
Finch, Harold
Janner, Sir Barnett


Blyton, William
Fitch, Alan
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas


Boardman, H.
Fletcher, Eric
Jeger, George


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)


Bowen, Roderio (Cardigan)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Bowles, Frank
Forman, J. C.
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Galpern, Sir Myer
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
George,LadyMeganLloyd (C'rm'rth'n)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Ginsburg, David
Kelley, Richard


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Kenyon, Clifford


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Gourlay, Harry
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Callaghan, James
Greenwood, Anthony
King, Dr. Horace


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Grey, Charles
Lawson, George


Chetwynd, George
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly)
Ledger, Ron


Cliffe, Michael
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Collick, Percy
Grimond, J.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Gunter, Ray
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Craddook, George (Bradford, S.)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)


Cronin, John
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvll (Colne Valley)
Lipton, Marcus


Crosland, Anthony
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Loughlin, Charles


Crossman, R. H. S.
Hannan, William
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Cullen, Mrs. Alice 
Hart, Mrs. Judith
McCann, John


Darling, George
Hayman, F. H.
MacColl, James


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Healey, Denis
McInnes, James


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Henderson, Rt.Hn.Arthur (Rwly Regis)
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hewltson, Capt. M.
Mackle, Jonn


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
McLeavy, Frank


Deer, George
Hilton, A. V.
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Holman, Peroy
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Delargy, Hugh

Manuel, A. C.







Mapp, Charles
Rankin, John
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Redhead, E. C.
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Marsh, Richard
Reid, William
Thornton, Ernest


Mason, Roy
Reynolds, G. W.
Timmons, John


Mayhew, Christopher
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Tomney, Frank


Mellish, R. J.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Mendelson, J. J.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Wade, Donald


Millan, Bruce
Ross, William
Wainwright, Edwin


Milne, Edward J.
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)
Warbey, William


Mitchison, G. R.
Shinwell, Rt Hon. E.
Watkins, Tudor


Monslow, Walter
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Moody, A. S.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Morris, John
Sheffington, Arthur
White, Mrs. Eirene


Mulley, Frederick
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Whitlock, William


Neal, Harold
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Wigg, George


Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Phillp (Derby, S.)
Small, William
Wilcock, Croup Capt. C. A. B.


Oram, A. E.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Oswald, Thomas
Snow, Julian
Willey, Frederick


Owen, Will
Sorensen, R. W.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Padley, W. E.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)


Paget, R. T.
Spriggs, Leslie
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Steele, Thomas
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Pargiter, G. A.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Stonehouse, John
Winterbottom, R. E.


Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)
Stones, William
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Pavitt, Laurence
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John
Woof, Robert


Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Peart, Frederick,
Stross,Dr.Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent,C.)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Pentland, Norman
Swain, Thomas
Zilliacus. K.


Prentice, R. E.
Swingler, Stephen
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Sylvester, George
Mr. G. H. R. Rogers and


Probert, Arthur
Symonds, J. B.
Mr. Short.


Proctor, W. T.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)



Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House. [Mr. Bowden.]:—

The House divided: Ayes 223, Noes 299.

Division No. 43.]
AYES
[10.12 p.m


Abse, Leo
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Ainsley, William
Delargy, Hugh
Hill, J. (Midlothian)


Albu, Austen
Dempsey, James
Hilton, A. V.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Diamond, John
Holman, Percy


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Dodds, Norman
Holt, Arthur


Awbery, Stan
Donnelly, Desmond
Houghton, Douglas


Bacon, Miss Alloe
Driberg, Tom
Howell, Charles A.


Baird, John
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Hoy, James H.


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Edelman, Maurice
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Beaney, Alan
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Hunter, A. E.


Blackburn, F.
Evans, Albert
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Blyton, William
Fernyhough, E.
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)


Boardman, H.
Finch, Harold
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Fitch, Alan
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Fletcher, Eric
Janner, Sir Barnett


Bowles, Frank
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Jeger, George


Brockway, A. Fenner
Forman, J. C.
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
George, LadyMeganLloyd (C'rm'rth'n)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Ginsburg, David
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Callaghan, James
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Gourlay, Harry
Kelley, Richard


Chetwynd, George
Greenwood, Anthony
Kenyon, Clifford


Cliffe, Michael
Grey, Charles
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Collick, Percy
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
King, Dr. Horace


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Lawson, George


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Grimond, J.
Ledger, Ron


Cronin, John
Gunter, Ray
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Crosland, Anthony
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)


Darling, George
Hannan, William
Lipton, Marcus


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Loughlin, Charles


Davies. Harold (Leek)
Hayman, F. H.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Davies, Ifor (Cower)
Healey, Denis
McCann, John


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Henderson, Rt.Hn.Arthur (Rwly Regis)
MacColl, James


Deer, George

McInnes, James




McKay, John (Wallsend)
Prentice, R. E. Taylor,
Bernard (Mansfield)


Mackie, John
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


McLeavy, Frank
Probert, Arthur
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Proctor, W. T.
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigs)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Thornton, Ernest


Manuel, A. C.
Rankin, John
Timmons, John


Mapp, Charles
Redhead, E. C.
Tomney, Frank


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Reynolds, G. W.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Marsh, Richard
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wade, Donald


Mason, Roy
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Wainwright, Edwin


Mayhew, Christopher
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Warbey, William


Mellish, R. J.
Ross, William
Watkins, Tudor


Mendelson, J. J.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Millan, Bruce
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Milne, Edward J.
Skeffington, Arthur
White, Mrs. Eirene


Mitchison, G. R.
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Whitlock, William


Monslow, Walter
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Morris, John
Small, William
Wilkins, W. A.


Mulley, Frederick
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Willey, Frederick


Neal, Harold
Snow, Julian
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Noel-Baker, Rt.Hn.Philip (Derby,S.)
Sorensen, R. W.
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Oram, A, E.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Oswald, Thomas
Spriggs, Leslie
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Owen, Will
Steele, Thomas
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Padley, W. E.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Paget, R. T.
Stonehouse, John
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Stones, William
Woof, Robert


Pargiter, G. A.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John
Wyatt, Woodrow


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)
Stross, Dr.Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent,C.)
Zilliacus, K.


Pavitt, Laurence
Swain, Thomas



Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Swingler, Stephen
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Peart, Frederick
Sylvester, George
Mr. G. H. R. Rogers and Mr. Short.


Pentland, Norman
Symonds, J. B.





NOES


Agnew, Sir peter
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.


Aitken, W. T.
Cordle, John
Green, Alan


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Corfield, F. V.
Gresham Cooke, R.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian (Preston, N.)
Costain, A. P.
Grimston, Sir Robert


Arbuthnot, John
Couleon, J. M.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Gurden, Harold


Atkins, Humphrey
Craddock, Sir Beresford
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Balniel, Lord
Critchley, Julian
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)


Barber, Anthony
Crosthwalte-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hare, Rt. Hon. John


Barlow, Sir John
Crowder, F. P.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Barter, John
Cunningham, Knox
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Batsford, Brian
Currie, G. B. H.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Dance, James
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hastings, Stephen


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos &amp; Fhm)
Deedes, W. F.
Hay, John


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxtoth)
de Ferranti, Basil
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Bidgood, John C.
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Biggs-Davison, John
Donaldson, Cmdr. c. E. M.
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James


Bingham, R. M.
Doughty, Charles
Hendry, Forbes


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Drayson, C. B.
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.


Bishop, F, P.
du Cann, Edward
Hiley, Joseph


Black, Sir Cyril
Duthie, Sir William
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)


Bossom, Clive
Eden, John
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)


Box, Donald
Elliott,R.W. (N'wc'stle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Emery, Peter
Hobson, John


Boyle, Sir Edward
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Hocking, Philip N.


Braine, Bernard
Errington, Sir Eric
Holland, Philip


Brewis, John
Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hollingworth, John


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Hopkins, Alan


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Fell, Anthony
Hornby, R. P.


Brooman-White, R.
Finlay, Graeme
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Fisher, Nigel
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)


Bryan, Paul
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)


Bullard, Denys
Foster, John
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Freeth, Denzil
Hughes-Young, Michael


Burden, F. A.
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Butler, Rt.Hn.R.A. (Saffron Walden)
Gammans, Lady
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Gardner, Edward
Jackson, John


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Gibson-Watt, David
James, David


Channon, H. P. G.
Glover, Sir Douglas
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Chataway, Christopher
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Jennings, J. C.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Godber, J. B.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Goodhart, Philip
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Goodhew, Victor
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)


Cleaver, Leonard
Gower, Raymond
Joseph, Sir Keith


Cooper, A. E.
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Kaberry, Sir Donald







Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Neave, Airey
Stevens, Geoffrey


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Stodart, J. A.


Kershaw, Anthony
Noble, Michael
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Kimball, Marcus
Nugent, Sir Richard
Studholme, Sir Henry


Kirk, Peter
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Kitson, Timothy
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)


Lambton, Viscount
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)
Talbot, John E.


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Tapsell, Peter


Langford-Holt, J.
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Leavey, J. A.
Partridge, E.
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Lilley, F. J. P.
Peel, John
Teeling, William


Lindsay, Martin
Percival, Ian
Temple, John M


Linstead, Sir Hugh
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Litchfield, Capt. John
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Longbottom, Charles
Pilkington, Sir Richard
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Longden, Gilbert
Pitman, I. J.
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Loveys, Walter H.
Pitt, Miss Edith
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Pott, Percivall
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


McAdden, Stephen
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


MacArthur, Ian
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


McLaren, Martin
Prior, J. M. L.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Vane, W. M. F.


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John


Maclean,Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; N.Ayrs.)
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Vickers, Miss Joan


Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Quennell, Miss J. M,
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Ramsden, James
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


McMaster, Stanley R.
Rawlinson, Peter
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Macmillan, Rt.Hn.Harold (Bromley)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Wall, Patrick


Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Rees, Hugh
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Maddan, Martin
Renton, David
Watts, James


Maitland, Sir John
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Webster, David


Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Ridsdale, Julian
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Rippon, Geoffrey
Whitelaw, William


Marlowe, Anthony
Roots, William
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Marshall, Douglas
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Marten, Neil
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Seymour, Leslie
Wise, A. R.


Matthews, Cordon (Meriden)
Sharples, Richard
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Mawby, Ray
Shaw, M.
Woodhouse, C. M.


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Shepherd, William
Woodnutt, Mark


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn
Woollam, John


Mills, Stratton
Skeet, T. H. H.
Worsley, Marcus


Montgomery, Fergus
Smithers, Peter



More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Morgan, William
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher
Mr. E. Wakefield and


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Colonel J. H. Harrison.


Nabarro, Gerald
Stanley, Hon. Richard

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE [MONEY]

10.26 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Queen's Recommendation?

Mr. Kenneth Robinson: Mr. Speaker, this is a Money Resolution on a Bill which imposes charges on Her Majesty's subjects totalling nearly £3 million. Are we not to have a word of explanation from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury?

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The present stage is that I have asked about the Queen's Recommendation.

[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Commitees).

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed.

That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to charges for the provision of dental and optical appliances and dental services, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under the National Health Service Act, 1946, or the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947;

(b) the payment into the Exchequer of any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable into the Exchequer under the National Health Service Act, 1951, or the National Health Service Act, 1952. —[Mr. Powell.]

Mr. Robinson: I must apologise, Sir Gordon, for being a little premature, but I will repeat what I said to the House. This is a Money Resolution attaching to a Bill which imposes upon the subject charges amounting to nearly £3 million. Are we not to have a word of explanation as to the effect of this from either the Financial Secretary or the Minister of Health or even the Secretary of State for Scotland?

The Minister of Health (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): If it would be to the convenience of the Committee, I will gladly explain the simple reason for the two parts of this Money Resolution. The two parts provide, respectively, for the

payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of increases attributable to the Bill if it becomes an Act and for the payment into the Exchequer of increases attributable to the Act. These two provisions are required for the following reasons.
The Committee will be aware that the Bill to which a Second Reading has just been given makes provision for two important exemptions from charges which have hitherto been levied. They have to be treated as additional payments out of the Exchequer, since the payments which will have to be made by the Exchequer to the dentists and to the opticians will be increased each year by the amount of the cost of the two exemptions. That is the reason for paragraph (a) of the Money Resolution.
The reason for paragraph (b) is that the increased charges will, in the case of hospital out-patients, although of hospital out-patients only, be paid into the Exchequer. Where increased charges are paid by the patients in the general dental and the ophthalmic services, the effect will be merely to decrease the outgoings from the Exchequer. Those are the reasons for the two provisions in the Money Resolution.

Mr. George Brown: I have seldom heard such an ingenuous—it would be better, perhaps, to say "disingenuous"—explanation. The Minister has set out—[Interruption.] Would the recumbent hon. Member like to identify himself?

Mr. A. R. Wise: As the right hon. Gentleman may have suspected, I acknowledged his challenge in the normal way when seated, which was to incline forwards. Naturally, I was unable to rise to my feet while the right hon. Gentleman was still on his. All I said was that I thought he might well shorten what he is obviously going to say simply by saying that he could not understand what the Minister had told him.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Brown: There are some people of whom it is said that they are wise by name and wise by nature. That clearly does not apply in this case.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Very poor.

Mr. Brown: All right. We have a certain amount of time. If the hon. Member wishes to help us, by all means let him do so. [Interruption.] You will notice, Sir Gordon, that there are an awful lot of hon. Members speaking while sitting down. [AN HON. MEMBER: "The right hon. Gentleman is standing up."] There are an awful lot of hon. Members over there who could not stand up unaided. While we fight for the people, the ex-Smoke Room boys come in here.
If we can get hon. Members opposite back to the point, the Minister sought to persuade the Committee—that part of the Committee that was open to understand what he was saying—that the only point about this Money Resolution was that it was to help expectant mothers under paragraph (a)—it was really a gift to them—and it was a gift to somebody else under paragraph (b). Really the Money Resolution was, he suggested, a beneficent act of a benevolent Government distributing public money to poor people.
I thought that for the right hon. Gentleman that was a very disingenuous act. He knows as well as I know, as well as this side of the Committee knows—for, as we well understand, that side of the Committee knows nothing—that if it were not for a Bill, on which we have spent the whole day putting charges on poor people, there would be no occasion for this Money Resolution to try to make it a little less bad for a few poor people. I have never heard a Minister so mislead the Committee about the purposes of a Measure—and with the Minister doing that awful, false laugh. And the face that he is now making is no improvement on the previous one. Doing that awful false laugh with his lips and not with his eyes does not make it any better.
The fact is that we have spent the whole day imposing charges on people for services which we ought to be glad to render to them at a cost which we ought to be glad to share, when we do not need the services, to help our poor fellow-sufferers who do need them. We have spent the whole day imposing charges, and it is contrary to any natural feeling that the Minister should get up tonight and pretend that this Money Resolution is for the purpose of distributing money. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to try again and to tell us really what the Money Resolution is for. I ask him to make it per-

fectly plain to his hon. Friends, who will vote with him whatever he says but who ought to have it explained to them, just what they are voting for.
Let him make it plain to them that this Money Resolution is absolutely essential in order that he can do what his Bill requires—in order that a lot of poor people, a lot of sick people, a lot of suffering people may be forced to pay money which at the moment they do not have to pay.

Mr. E. G. Willis: I want to put a question to the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Bill applies to Scotland. The Minister of Health, explaining this Money Resolution, told us that we had to have paragraph (a) of the Resolution because certain charges were being remitted, and he made play with that. Accordingly, what I want to know from the Secretary of State for Scotland, who, I am sure, in his usual assiduous fashion, has carefully gone into this in so far as it affects Scotland, is, what is this sum which will be paid
out of moneys provided by Parliament
to meet
any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under the …. National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947.
I think that is a perfectly fair question. [Interruption.] Certainly it is. If the Government come to the people of Scotland and tell the people of Scotland that they are making a gift, we have a right to ask the right hon. Gentleman what the gift is, and what this sum is going to amount to.

Hon. Members: Does he know?

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: He ought to know.

Mr. Willis: I will give the right hon. Gentleman the opportunity of obtaining the necessary information. I am quite sure we can find other questions while he is doing that—unless, of course, he has the information at hand.
These sums are payable under two Acts of Parliament—one for Scotland—and these sums must have been differentiated by somebody. Therefore, I am quite sure that the experts in the Treasury, and in the Ministry of Health in England, and the Department of Health in Scotland, must know.

Mr. George Thomas: Where is the Minister for Welsh Affairs?

Mr. Willis: I have not yet discovered what the amount is. [Interruption.]

The Chairman: Order. I cannot hear the hon. Member.

Mr. Willis: I am grateful for your protection, Sir Gordon, and may I repeat—

Mr. William Hamilton: I still cannot hear.

Mr. Willis: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) will ask his own questions. I want to be sure that we get this information and that the Scottish Members in particular know what it is that we are being given.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: It is quite obvious that we need a good deal more information about this Financial Resolution before the Committee can be expected to pass it. I thought that the brief explanation which the Minister sought to give was not only disingenuous, but very superficial. He made no attempt to explain the precise scope of the Financial Resolution.
Paragraph 3 of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum gays that the exemptions which are contained in subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 1 will cost an additional £270,000 a year and, as I understand it, the whole object of the Financial Resolution is to provide the basis on which the committee dealing with the Bill in Committee can deal with the charge to the Revenue.
Many of my hon. and right hon. Friends feel that the exemptions mentioned in Clause I do not go far enough. For example, I observe that in subsection (3) exemptions are provided only for children under 16 years of age and expectant mothers or mothers who have borne a child within the previous twelve months. I am sure that, in view of the Second Reading debate, when the Bill reaches Committee some of my hon. and right hon. Friends will urge that those exemptions are too narrow and ought to be extended.
I therefore want to ask the Minister to tell us whether the Financial Resolution is so drawn as to preclude attempts by my hon. and right hon. Friends to

widen the scope of the exemptions. The right hon. Gentleman will have appreciated from the whole tenor of the Second Reading debate that we are interested not so much in the additional charges as in the exemptions which are to be made. We do not want to find when we come to the Committee stage that, because of the terms of this Financial Resolution, we shall be unable to move Amendments designed to extend the scope of the exemptions. I hope that the Minister will give us a clear and unambiguous answer to that question.
Contrary to most Financial Resolutions, there is no limit in this. It is curiously worded and I cannot recollect having seen a Financial Resolution which does not deal specifically with the kind of amount that the Committee may be able to authorise.
Secondly, I think that the Committee is entitled to a further explanation about paragraph (b) of the Resolution, because it deals not with the Acts of 1946 and 1947, but with the National Health Service Acts of 1951 and 1952. The whole of the subject has aroused so much concern and anxiety in the country that it will obviously be desirable for the Committee to ventilate it to the fullest possible extent, and we shall be anxious to move Amendments with the object of considerably extending the scope of the exemptions which, the Minister has already conceded, are required and which we consider not to go nearly far enough.
Before we pass this Resolution, will the Minister be good enough to give us an assurance that we shall not be precluded by the narrow terms of the Resolution from putting down Amendments in the sense that I have indicated?

Several Hon. Members: rose —

The Chairman: Mr. Silverman.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I apologise for my hesitation in rising, Sir Gordon, but I find it almost as difficult tonight to hear what you are saying as I found it last night, though perhaps not for quite the same reason.
I should like to say a word on the point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher).
As I read the Resolution, it seems to be wide enough to cover any Amendments that we might happen to persuade the Committee to accept in the later stages of the Bill. The first paragraph says:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to charges for the provision of dental and optical appliances and dental services … 
It is not limited to the charges in the Bill at the moment. It refers to any charges which may be in the Bill by the time the House parts with it, by the time we come to the Report stage or to the Third Reading.
I know that he cannot rule about it because that is a matter for the Chair, but was it the Minister's intention to draw the Money Resolution wide enough to cover any of the Amendments which my hon. Friend had in mind?
Mr. Hector Hughes (Aberdeen, North): When the Minister rises to reply to the point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) will be give us the figures? My hon. Friend referred to paragraph (a). The relevant part of the Resolution reads as follows:
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session … (a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable … under … the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947".
Presumably the sum of money involved there is not one lump sum, fixed once and for all. It is presumably an annual sum which has 'been varied and variable since the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947, was passed. Presumably there must have been a different sum for 1947–48, 1948–49, 1949–50, 1950–51, and so on, up to the present time. I gather that the Minister is a mathematician—

Mr. G. Brown: No, a Greek scholar.

Mr. Hughes: I do not know whether he is a Greek scholar, but I certainly do not want him to reply in Greek. I gathered from his speech that he is also a poet. He may, if he likes, reply in Latin. I shall be able to understand him if he does. Even though he may not be a mathematician, the general purpose of my question is to discover the figures for each year from 1947 to the present time.

Mr. G. Thomas: If I may, with the permission of the Patronage Secretary—

[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—I get a little tired of hearing some of my hon. Friends—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and hon. Gentlemen opposite always give me the impression of being tired. I get a little tired—

Mr. E. Fernyhough: On a point of order. I did not clearly hear my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), but I wondered whether he said "tired" or "tight."

Mr. Thomas: When my hon. Friend asks such a question I wonder where he has been.
I rise on behalf of the people of Wales. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] We are reputed to have a watch-dog for Welsh Affairs who sits on the Front Bench opposite. It is quite clear that he has gone to his kennel. We have not been privileged to see the Minister for Welsh Affairs.
We have a special interest in this Money Resolution because we have been told that the people of Wales have drawn on the dental services—[Interruption.] Does my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) wish me to wait? I do not wish to interrupt him. [An HON. MEMBER: "He is the watchdog."] I am not very easily put off, but I must say that I am a bit surprised at the way hon. Members opposite are behaving. I hope that if the Secretary of State for Scotland is going to answer my Scottish hon. Friends and give them the information for which they asked concerning the part of the Money Resolution which relates to Scotland, the Minister of Health, in the absence of his right hon. Friend the Minister for Welsh Affairs.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"]—I think that my hon. Friends are unnecessarily impatient. We are better off without him.
I believe that we have a right to ask the Minister of Health to tell the people of Wales how much of this £3 million is likely to find its way into Welsh pockets. In the meantime—

Mr. Richard Marsh: In the absence of the Minister for Welsh Affairs, would not my hon. Friend be prepared to accept a statement from the Secretary of State for the Colonies?

Mr. Thomas: The Welsh are very proud people. That suggestion is quite unworthy of my hon. Friend; I am a little surprised at him.
I only want to ask that the Minister of Health, who is himself a Welshman, as he reminds us when he is in Wales, should give us a detailed statement as to how the Principality will be affected by the terms of this Money Resolution.

Mr. G. W. Reynolds: I also want to know something about the limitation to be placed upon Amendments in Committee by the Financial Resolution. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) asked about the possibility of extending the exemptions from the new charges now proposed, and my question is on similar lines. We have in front of us a National Health Service Bill, the contents of which I completely disagree with. At the same time, it appears to me from the Long Title that if suitable Amendments were made we might almost get rid of all these charges in Committee. That would mean that we would need more money to be given from the Exchequer towards the cost of running the National Health Service. I should like to know from the Government whether the terms of the Money Resolution would prevent us from reducing the charges to a purely nominal level, in accordance with the Long Title of the Bill. Would the Money Resolution allow us to do that, or would it preclude us from doing so?
I am also concerned with paragraph (b) of the Resolution. I understood that one of the principal arguments for the measures which we are debating this week was that we must provide further money for hospital expansion. Yet, as I understand that paragraph, all the moneys which the hospitals collect by way of additional charges are not to be kept by them for that expansion but are to be handed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to use for whatever purpose he likes. The paragraph says that the sums shall be payable into the Exchequer. If the idea is to provide more money for the hospital service, why should we make provision in the Money Resolution for the money intended to be for the hospital service to be taken from the hospitals and given to the Exchequer?
I hope that those two points can be answered. If they are not answered to my satisfaction I shall feel compelled to vote against the Money Resolution.

Mr. Douglas Jay: I express the hope that the Minister will be permitted to reply to the questions which have been addressed to him tonight. So far as I can understand the Minister's original remarks, which were very brief and rather difficult to hear, he attempted to convey to the Committee the impression that what the Money Resolution did was to give him the power to put out various sums of money from the Exchequer to various people in need, in the matter of dental and optical treatment. It seemed to me that the Minister rather slurred over paragraph (b). If that is so, he gave a very misleading impression to the Committee, and I am sure that hon. Members opposite, whatever their demeanour, would wish to know what Resolution the House of Commons is now being asked to pass.
Paragraph (b) provides that it is expedient for
the payment into the Exchequer of any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable into the Exchequer under the National Health Service Act, 1951, or the National Health Service Act, 1952.
I presume that that means that we are here dealing not with moneys paid out in the form of benefits but with charges levied upon the public. If that is correct we would wish to know what amounts will be paid into the Exchequer under the Resolution and what amounts will be paid out. If we take paragraph (b) together wth paragraph 3 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill—and I am sure that hon. Members opposite will have studied them—it would appear that the Resolution gives power for the sum of £3 million to be raised from the public and for a much smaller sum—in a full year, £270,000—to be paid out for the purpose of this service.
Am I right in thinking that, putting these together, the Resolution provides for a levy upon the public of a charge of £3 million, less £270,000 in a full year, and that the corresponding sum in the year 1961–62 is in the region of £1,750,000? Is that the case? If it is not, will the right hon. Gentleman explain the facts? I hope that he will be permitted to reply. If we are imposing a charge here of nearly £3 million, I submit that the Minister's original introduction was extremely misleading and disingenous.

Mr. Powell: On this occasion, the right hon. Gentleman, my fellow ex-F.S.T.,—

Mr. G. Brown: What is that?

Mr. Powell: —is mistaken about the Money Resolution. I should first like to answer the question put to me—

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: On a point of order. May we be told which of the many languages known by the Minister of Health he is using at this moment?

The Chairman: I thought he was speaking in English.

Mr. Powell: The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) asked me—

Hon. Members: What does "F.S.T." mean?

Mr. Powell: It means "Financial Secretary to the Treasury."

Mr. Brown: We have forgiven him for that.

Mr. Powell: The hon. Member for Islington, East asked whether the terms of paragraph (a) of the Money Resolution were wide enough to admit of any increase in the exemptions as they are provided by the Bill at the moment. The answer to that, as his hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) apprehended, is "Yes." The effect of paragraph (a) is quite general and allows for any increase attributable to this Bill when it becomes an Act. So the answer to the question is, "Yes."

Mr. Fletcher: This is very important and the Committee should get it clear. Are we now to understand that it will be open to the Committee to put down an Amendment the effect of which would be to increase exemptions under the Bill without any limit, so that if the Committee so desired it could decide to absorb the whole of the £3 million additional charges to which we are so violently opposed by granting further exemptions?

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Powell: Any increase attributable to this Bill as passed—any increase, whatever exemptions it includes when passed,—will be able to be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament within the terms of the Money Resolution.
I am afraid, however, that I cannot respond equally to the invitation of the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen. North (Mr. Hector Hughes), because the increase referred to in the first paragraph of the Money Resolution is not an increase which has taken place in past years. The increase is in the sums to be paid out of the moneys provided by Parliament which will take place under this Bill when it becomes an Act. And since I have just told the hon. Member for Islington, East that it is completely open and does not prejudice exemptions which may be in the Bill when it becomes an Act, it follows that I cannot state the amount of the increase which will eventually be attributable to this Measure in the sums payable—

Mr. Hector Hughes: Are they annual sums?

Mr. Powell: Parliament does account for money annually and, in that sense, they are annual sums. Perhaps the point the hon. and learned Gentleman fails to apprehend is that they are future and not past payments. That answer also precludes me from responding to the invitation of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), because, again, I cannot know what sums exactly will go in or out within the ambit of paragraphs (a) and (b) of the Resolution.

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: Even though he cannot give the exact figures, cannot the Minister at least give the proportion as between England, Wales and Scotland?

Mr. Powell: I think the hon. and learned Member will find that that question is largely answered by the second part of my reply, which I will give presently to my fellow ex-Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay).
Referring to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds), the second paragraph of the Resolution is just as much at large as the first paragraph and does not limit upwards or downwards the increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable into the Exchequer. In so far as those sums are received by hospitals, under the system of accounting they must be accounted for as paid into the Exchequer, but that in no way prejudices the application within the Health Service of any sum


devoted to the Health Service, however received and from whatever source.
Coming finally to the other part of the query of the right hon. Gentleman, he asked me to indicate whether paragraph (b) covers the lion's share of the sums with which the Bill deals. The answer is that it does not. In so far as the increased charges are payable within the general dental and ophthalmic services there will be no resultant increase in sums paid into the Exchequer, because the charges levied within the general and ophthalmic services are not paid into the Exchequer but only go to diminish the sums which have to be paid to the dentists and opticians under the respective Acts Consequently, the only reference in paragraph (b) is to the increase in charges levied upon out-patients at the hospitals which, as I have just told the hon. Member for Islington, North, are accounted for as paid into the Exchequer.
Finally, as I apprehend that it is possibly in the minds of hon. Members opposite to divide against the Money Resolution, may I point out that whereas £20,000—£30,000 of extra charges is involved in paragraph (b), if paragraph (a) is not passed, no exemptions whatever can be made under the Bill—so perhaps they will take that into account.

Mr. G. Brown: That was a very nice comment at the very end. I understood the Minister to say that he could not estimate the effect of the Bill on the Exchequer because there were so many imponderables and unknowns. If I may follow his shorthand language, with the permission of the C.P.S. and that of the L.O.H. sitting there to protect him, will the ex-F.S.T. and present M.O.H. have another shot at it? Will he please tell us what is the give-away under paragraph (a) and what is the extra charge under paragraph (b)? We need to know both figures.

The Chairman: May I remind hon. Members that under Standing Order 1A I have to put the Question at 11.13 p.m.

Mr. Brown: But surely, Sir Gordon, you would not refuse the ex-F.S.T. the opportunity to reply. If you find any difficulty, the C.P.S. will help you out.

Mr. Powell: I think it would be just as well for hon. and right hon. Members opposite to know that as the Bill stands at the moment—

Mr. Brown: It is N.B.G.

Mr. Powell: —although I have explained that it does not inhibit amendment of the Bill, the financial effect is that exemptions to the value of £270,000 a year are permitted under paragraph (a), but charges of about £20,000 per annum are covered under paragraph (b).

Mr. Jay: The Minister of Health, whether he talks in words or in letters, seems to make the matter about as clear as mud.

Mr. Brown: M.U.D.

Mr. Jay: I ask him this plain question. Is he now trying to induce the Committee to believe that under paragraph (b) the Government propose to raise sums of not more than £20,000 or £30,000 from the subjects? In spite of that, we are informed in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill that the saving to the Exchequer from the additional charges in a full year is estimated to be a little under £3 million.

Mr. Brown: E. and O.E.

Mr. Jay: Will the Minister please explain to us in simple English words how his £20,000 or £30,000 are related to the £3 million?

Mr. Powell: It is only those increased charges which are levied on hospital outpatients which will be paid into the Exchequer and which are therefore covered by paragraph (b). This Money Resolution is not necessary at all—[Interruption]—in order to make it possible to levy the higher charges in the general dental and ophthalmic services.

Mr. James Callaghan: In one of those favourable reviews which have been recently appearing about the Minister it was said that he was lucid to the point of incomprehensibility.

It being thirteen minutes after Eleven o'clock, three quarters of an hour after the House had resolved itself into the Committee, The CHAIRMAN put the Question pursuant to Standing Order No. 1A (Exemptions from Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House)).

The Committee proceeded to a Division—

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Sir Gordon. Is it not an abuse of the procedure of this Committee to have a Resolution put which the mover says is utterly unnecessary?

The Chairman: That is not what the right hon. Gentleman said.

The Committee divided: Ayes 269, Noes 199.

Division No. 44.]
AYES
[11.13 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Foster, John
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Aitken, W. T.
Freeth, Denzil
MacArthur, Ian


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. 0.
McLaren, Martin


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian (Preston, N.)
Gammans, Lady
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia


Arbuthnot, John
Gardner, Edward
Maolay, Rt. Hon. John


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Glover, Sir Douglas
Maclean,SirFitzroy (Bute&amp;N.Ayrs.)


Atkins, Humphrey
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfield, W.)


Balniel, Lord
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)


Barber, Anthony
Godber, J. B.
McMaster, Stanley R.


Barlow, Sir John
Goodhart, Philip
Macmlllan,Rt.Hn.Harold (Bromley)


Barter, John
Goodhew, Victor
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)


Batsford, Brian
Gower, Raymond
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Maddan, Martin


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R,
Maitland, Sir John


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Green, Alan
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Bidgood, John c.
Grimston, Sir Robert
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest


Biggs-Davison. John
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Marten, Neil


Bingham, R. M.
Gurden, Harold
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Bishop, F. P.
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Mawby, Ray


Black, Sir Cyril
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Bossom, Clive
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Bourne-Arton, A,
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mills, Stratton


Box, Donald
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Montgomery, Fergus


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Morgan, William


Braine, Bernard
Hastings, Stephen
Mott-Radctyffe, Sir Charles


Brewis, John
Hay, John
Nabarro, Gerald


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Neave, Airey


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Hendry, Forbes
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Bryan, Paul
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Bullard, Denys
Hiley, Joseph
Noble, Michael


Burden, F. A.
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Nugent, Sir Richard


Butler,Rt.Hn.R.A. (Saffron Walden)
Hinohingbrooke, Viscount
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hobson, John
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Channon, H. P. G.
Hooking, Philip N.
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)


Chataway, Christopher
Holland, Philip
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hollingworth, John
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hopkins, Alan
Partridge, E.


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hornby, R. P.
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Peel, John


Cleaver, Leonard
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Percival, Ian


Cooper, A. E.
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Cordie, John
Hughes-Young, Michael
Pitman, I. J.


Corfield, F. V.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pitt, Miss Edith


Costain, A. P.
Iremonger, T. L-
Pott, Percivall


Coulson, J. M.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Jackson, John
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Craddock, Sir Beresford
James, David
Prior, J. M. L.


Critchley, Julian
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. 0. E.
Jennings, J. C.
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Crowder, F. P.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Cunningham, Knox
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
 Quennell, Miss J. M.


Curran, Charles
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Rawllnson, Peter


Currie, G. B. H.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Dance, James
Joseph, Sir Keith
Rees, Hugh


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Renton, David


Deedes, W. F.
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


de Ferranti, Basil
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Ridsdale, Julian


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kershaw, Anthony
Roots, William


Doughty, Charles
Kimball, Marcus
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Drayson, G. B.
Kirk, Peter
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


du Cann, Edward
Kitson, Timothy
Scott-Hopkins, James


Eden, John
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Seymour, Leslie


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Langford-Holt, J.
Sharpies, Richard


Elliott,R. W. (N 'wc'stle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Leavey, J. A.
Shaw, M.


Emery, Peter
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shepherd, William


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Lindsay, Martin
Skeet, T. H. H.


Errington, sir Eric
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Smithers, Peter


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Litchfield, Capt. John
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Fell, Anthony
Longbortom, Charles
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Finlay, Graeme
Longden, Gilbert
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Fisher, Nigel
Loveys, Walter H.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Steward, Harold (Stockport, s.)




Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Studholme, Sir Henry
Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Whitelaw, William


Summers, Sir Spenoer (Aylesbury)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Sumner, Donald (Orpington)
Vane, W. M. F.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Talbot, John E.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Tapsell, Peter
Vickers, Miss Joan
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Taylor, W.J. (Bradford, N.)
vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
Wise, A. R.


Teeling, William
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Temple, John M.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Woodhouse, c. M.


Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek
Woodnutt, Mark


Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Wall, Patrick
Woollam, John


Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Ward, Dame Irene
Worsley, Marcus


Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Watts, James
Mr. Gibson-Watt and Mr. J. E B. Hill




NOES


Abse, Leo
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Ainsley, William
Hannan, William
Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)


Albu, Austen
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Pavitt, Laurence


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hayman, F. H.
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Healey, Denis
Peart, Frederick


Awbery, Stan
Henderson, Rt.Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Pentland, Norman


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Baird, John
Hilton, A. V.
Prentice, R. E.


Beaney, Alan
Holman, Percy
Prober!, Arthur


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Holt, Arthur
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Biyton, William
Houghton, Douglas
Rankin, John


Boardman, H.
Howell, Charles A.
Redhead, E. C.


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Reynolds, G. W.


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bowles, Frank
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hunter, A. E.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Panoras, N.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hynd, John (Attercllfe)
Ross, William


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Beiper)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Janner, Sir Bamett
Skeffington, Arthur


Callaghan, James
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Jeger, George
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Chetwynd, George
Jenkins, Roy (Steohford)
Small, William


Ciiffe, Michael
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creeoh (Wakefield)
Snow, Julian


Craddook, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Sorensen, R. W.


Crorrin, John
Jones, Jaok (Rotherham)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Crosland, Anthony
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Spriggs, Leslie


Crossman, R. H, S.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Kelley, Richard
Stonehouse, John


Darling, George
Kenyon, Clifford
Stones, William


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
King, Dr. Horace
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lawson, George
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Ledger, Ron
Stross,Dr.Bamett (Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Davies, S. 0. (Merthyr)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Swain, Thomas


Deer, George
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Swingler, Stephen


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Sylvester, George


Delargy, Hugh
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Symonds, J. B.


Dempsey, James
Loughlln, Charlet
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Diamond, John
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Dodds, Norman
MacColl, James
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Donnelly, Desmond
Molnnes, James
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Driberg, Tom
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Timmons, John


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Mackle, John
Tomney, Frank


Edelman, Maurice
McLeavy, Frank
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Wade, Donald


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Mallalleu, E. L. (Brigg)
Walnwright, Edwin


Evans, Albert
Manuel, A. C.
Warbey, William


Fernyhough, E.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Watkins, Tudor


Finch, Harold
Marsh, Richard
wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fletcher, Eric
Mason, Roy
White, Mrs. Eirene


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Mayhew, Christopher
Whitlock, William


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mellish, R. J.
Wilcook, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Forman, J. C.
Mendelson, J. J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Galtskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Millan, Bruce
Willey, Frederick


Galpen, Sir Myer
Milne, Edward J.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


George, LadyMeganLloyd (C'rm'rth'n)
Mitohison, G. R.
Williams, LI. (Abertlllery)


Glnsburg, David
Morris, John
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mulley, Frederick
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Gourlay, Harry
Neal, Harold
Winterbottom, R. E.


Greenwood, Anthony
Oram, A. E.
Woof, Robert


Grey, Charles
Oswald, Thomas
Wyatt, Woodrow


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Owen, Will
Yates, Victor (Ladvwood)


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Padley, W. E.
Zilliacus, K.


Grimond, J.
Paget, R. T.



Gunter, Ray
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Pargiter, G. A.
Mr. Rogers and Mr. Short.

Resolution to be reported.

Resolution to be received Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

11.23 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I will, with permission, make a short business statement.
At the request of the Opposition this afternoon I undertook to consider deferring consideration of the Ways and Means Resolution which is down to be reported to the House tonight. Discussions have taken place through the usual channels and agreement has been reached to defer the Report stage until Monday next, on the basis that the Second Reading of the National Health Service Contributions Bill will nevertheless be taken on Wednesday as already announced.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: I am sure that the House will welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement. We are obliged to him. I do not want to take up the time of the House, but of course the Second Reading of the National Health Service Contributions Bill can only be taken on Wednesday next on the assumption that the Money Resolution is through its Committee and Report stages.

Orders of the Day — LONDON COAL EXCHANGE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Redmayne.]

11.25 p.m.

Mr. Tom Driberg: I shall not detain the House long, but I must start by thanking the Parliamentary Secretary for the delaying action which he took after our exchanges on 31st January, the Common Council of the City for courteously deferring to his request, and, of course, Mr. Speaker for allowing me this opportunity of speaking on behalf of one of the most unusual and interesting buildings in his own constituency, the Coal Exchange.
It might not have been necessary to have this debate at all had the threat to the Coal Exchange arisen, say, ten years hence, for it is, of course, a Victorian building—very early Victorian, 1847 to 1849—and we are only just beginning to realise that Victorian architecture at its best can be very fine indeed. There are

always these cycles of taste. Not only the architects, but the poets, painters, novelists of the period immediately preceding our own are out of fashion; then we begin to be interested in them again, and can see them in perspective, without the excessive adulation to which they are, perhaps, subjected in their lifetime, or the excessive disparagement which follows their death.
It is only quite recently that the Victorian Society has been formed and has begun to educate public opinion on this matter, and indeed has warned us, perhaps only just in time, that we must act quickly if we are to preserve at least specimens of the best building of that once much ridiculed age.
My contention is that the Parliamentary Secretary was ill-advised, or, if he was expressing his own view, that his judgment was at fault, when he said, on 31st January, that the road development, the "vital" road development which is projected in Lower Thames Street,
must interfere either with an absolutely outstanding building—Custom House—on one side, or with a less outstanding building—a considerably less outstanding building—on the other side."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st January, 1961; Vol. 633, c. 754.]
I agree that it is difficult to argue about matters of taste, yet to some extent one can say that if a wide consensus of obviously civilised and expert opinion is in a certain direction it is at least prima facie evidence.
I wonder whether the Minister has been looking up or has noticed what various distinguished people have said about the Coal Exchange. I have here a statement by Sir Mortimer Wheeler which he prepared yesterday; quotations from it appeared in The Times this morning. I may perhaps just read this; it is quite short. Those who have seen Sir Mortimer on television will be able to imagine the rolling eye, the superb moustachios, and the orotund enunciation. Sir Mortimer writes:
Professor Pevsner has placed the threatened London Coal Exchange among the twelve irreplaceable buildings of 19th century England. It has indeed many of the essential qualities of a masterpiece. It stands at the beginning of a new era in metal construction.
I may perhaps break off here to say that it is, of course, the first building in cast-iron on this scale anywhere in the


world. It antedates the Crystal Palace by several years.
"It is"—
Sir Mortimer says—
intelligently and graciously designed; its function is emphasised by an astonishing wealth of apt and skilful decoration by Sang—coal-plants and coal-worthies, pit-shafts and colliery tackle; and it was opened by Prince Albert in person in 1849. It expresses an era of urbane revolution as no other surviving building is capable of doing. Even the careful preservation of a tattered Roman hypocaust in its basement is a happy symbol of that decade which, more than any other, saw a new flowering of scientific and humanistic understanding throughout the country. The Coal Exchange is a national monument in the fullest sense of the phrase, and its destruction would be unforgivable.
Those are very strong words, as the Minister will agree.
I could quote many other similar expressions of opinion, by Professor Pevsner himself, by Mr. John Betjeman and by Mr. Ian Nairn, who wrote in the Daily Telegraph that this building was
how Adam might have built if he had lived in the mid-19th century".
He said that it was
technically a very elegant job
and that there was
nothing quite like this anywhere else in England.
A point that I want to emphasise is that the Parliamentary Secretary seemed in his supplementary answer to have been seduced by the fallacy of earliness. Just because the building opposite, the Custom House, is earlier than the Coal Exchange, it is automatically assumed that it must be better. The best answer to that—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph): So as not to waste time, and that the hon. Member shall not waste ammunition on what is not my argument, those opinions are not my own. My right hon. Friend is advised by the Advisory Committee which graded the Custom House above its grading of the Coal Exchange.

Mr. Driberg: I suggest, then, that the Advisory Committee is seduced by the fallacy of earliness. It has not got round to the Coal Exchange yet. The answer to the Minister and his advisory experts is that the Georgian Group,

which is primarily interested in preserving buildings of the period of the Custom House, agreed with the Victorian Society that the Coal Exchange ought to be preserved, even at the cost of removing some small part of the Custom House, because the back of the Custom House, in Lower Thames Street facing the Coal Exchange, is very dull, plain and ordinary. It is the river front which is interesting.
This is indeed a most fascinating building. Some idea of it can be obtained from a print which hon. Members can see in the Library reproduced as Plate 63 in Hitchcock's volume in the Pelican "History of Art." There are murals of trees from which coal has been made and murals of North Shields, Sunderland, Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Durham, immortalising, I hope, the historic seaborne trade between the Northern coalfields and the South of England.
The Parliamentary Secretary explained that the building had to be demolished because of a vital road development. We all appreciate the importance of that, but surely we must have some sense of proportion and comparative values. If there were a proposal to pull down St. Paul's or St. Stephen's, Walbrook, for road development, obviously the Minister would never allow it—but just because, and only because, the Coal Exchange was built in the nineteenth century, instead of the eighteenth or the seventeenth century, the threat is real. Yet, of its kind and period, it is a building of quite exceptional character and merit.
I hope very much that the Parliamentary Secretary is going to tell us tonight either that a decision has been taken to reprieve the building, or at least that there is to be a public inquiry. I feel that he can hardly refuse a public inquiry. I am assured that it would be technically possible to divert the projected road by the few yards needed, and the public inquiry could also examine various possible future uses for this building, some of which have been suggested by Mr. John Betjeman, who told us on the B.B.C. this morning that when the last tenants were given notice—they had been working in offices there—they had found it so agreeable and convenient a place to work in that they sent an appeal or protest against having to leave.
If it is absolutely impossible to preserve it on its present site—and I naturally hope that it is possible—then, as the Parliamentary Secretary will be aware, a plan is in existence for incorporating at least its interior, that noble galleried rotunda, in the rebuilt Royal School of Music on the redeveloped Barbican site.
But I hope personally that it can be preserved where it is, and as it is. If the Minister can bring that about, I am sure that Londoners of the future will bless his name.

11.35 p.m.

Colonel C. G. Lancaster: I warmly support the convincing appeal made by the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) on behalf of the London Coal Exchange. I do so on the ground that I expect that I am the only person in the House who made use of that building for the purpose for which it was built.
Like everybody else who did so use it, I know that one could not but be impressed by the noble features of a very distinguished building which has played a very significant part in the City of London and in the commerce of this country.
I hope that both on those grounds, and on the aesthetic grounds so ably put forward by the hon. Gentleman that my hon. Friend will recognise that the claim for the retention of this building is a real one and that, even if he is unable this evening to say that it will be saved, he will agree to a public inquiry on behalf of the London Coal Exchange.

11.36 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: I support what the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) said. In doing so, may I anticipate what I expect my hon. Friend will say in reply. He will say that this is an all-important road and that it must have precedence over the Coal Exchange. In other words, the movable object cannot resist the irresistible force.
Before he says that, may I remind him of the incalculable good which the Government can do once in a while, perhaps once in a thousand times, and the enormous boost they can give to

the morale of those who strive to preserve objects of this kind, by saying that in the exceptional instance the movable object will resist the irresistible force. If an exception is to be made to the case which is always made for the great road or route, I think that the Coal Exchange is probably as good an example of when to make the exception as will be found. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree to this claim.

11.38 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph): It would be a pleasure to reply to such a constructively and moderately put debate if only one could be as forthcoming as hon. Members wish. I hope to be constructive and have some helpful ideas, but I must say that I cannot go as far as hon. Members were hoping. No hon. Member who has spoken addressed himself seriously to the implications of preserving this building, and I must do that.
May I explain that we have a system of discriminating preservation which is based upon a drill of listing and grading buildings. This does not depend on either my right hon. Friend's or my personal views or opinions. It depends on the advice given to us by the admirably public spirited people who serve on my right hon. Friend's Advisory Committee on buildings of special architectural and historic importance. It is that Committee which has supervised and agreed the listing of buildings all over the country, and I would remind the House that these lists are divided into two categories.
There is the statutory list and the supplementary list. Without going into details, the broad purpose of both lists is to make sure that no building that appears on one or the other of those lists can be altered, let alone demolished, without the most serious consideration of the merits of that project being given by, if necessary my right hon. Friend, and certainly by the local authority involved.
The fact is that the country as a whole can by this process be put on notice before any building on these lists is touched, and the fact that we are here discussing this matter on the initiative of the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) pays a tribute to the drill.
I must remind the House that there are on these lists over 140,000 buildings, and the job has not yet been completed. The hon. Gentleman used the key word when he said that we must have proportion. We cannot preserve all these buildings. Developments of all kinds—roads, hospitals and every other sort of development—have to be considered in relation to the value of each building on these lists. My right hon. Friend and I have to take account of the relative superiority of one building over another as advised to us by the Advisory Committee. All cannot be preserved.
I would stress to the hon. Member for Barking that we certainly do not go in for what one might call vulgar discrimination by virtue of date or who designed the building. We go on what the Advisory Committee tells us are the merits, but we also have to take other facts into consideration. We have to take into account the function of the building, the condition of the building, the purpose to which the building may be put or whether any use can be found for it, and, above all, the implication on other buildings of preserving one particular building.
No one denies the great interest and historical significance of the Coal Exchange. We all have beside us quotations about its excellence. It was originally graded on the supplementary list, but a couple of years ago my right hon. Friend's Advisory Committee, on its own volition and without any crisis as far as I am aware, promoted the building to Grade 2. In other words, it would now feature as if it had been listed—it has not been listed in the legal sense—in the statutory list. It is being treated as if it were in that list, and that is why my right hon. Friend is seized of the matter.
The building has been neglected. It has suffered war damage and the use to which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) referred was brought to an end by nationalisation. The building was then used as offices. The City of London proposed to reinstate it in 1953 at large cost, but was stopped by the then Government, partly because of the capital restrictions and partly because the looming road widening scheme did not make it sensible. Because of war damage, dangerous structure notices began to be served and there first appeared the proposal to demolish the building.
In 1958, when this was made publicly known, the Royal Fine Art Commission and my right hon. Friend's Advisory Committee urged that every effort should be made to find ways of keeping the building, but neither of them said, as they have both said about some buildings, that the building must be kept at all costs—the sort of instance which the hon. Member for Barking fairly gave of something which would take absolute priority.
The Royal Fine Art Commission suggested that the iron structure should be removed and re-erected. The City of London held its hand and examined carefully with the London County Council ways of so treating the proposals that the building could be maintained despite the road widening scheme. But the fact is that all suggestions for leaving the building where it is and putting the road round it or under it, or in some way enabling the road widening scheme to go through without damaging the building, fell down on one ground or another.
I have before me all the alternatives discussed. The proposal was made to arcade the buildings to a depth of 10 ft. on both sides of the road and to dispense with the central reservation. The proposal was made to widen wholly on the south side at the expense of Custom House and Billingsgate Market. The proposal was made to arcade to a depth of 10 ft. on the Coal Exchange side and to widen to a lesser extent on the other side.
But in all these proposals, which the hon. Member for Barking passed over very casually, saying that the northern side is better than the southern side, my right hon. Friend comes up against this difficulty.
Custom House is a building which has a function, in that a Custom House has been on that site for 500 years. The existing building was erected in 1828, to the design of Robert Smirke. The east wing was almost destroyed by enemy action in 1940, but the Ministry proposes to reconstruct the east wing to match the west wing, so that all three facades will reproduce the original design. An exact reproduction would not be possible if land were surrendered for the road widening scheme. The interior of the reconstructed wing will be on modern lines


as far as is practicable and the availability of the extra space will enable the Board of Customs and Excise to bring under one roof all the staff of its London Port Collection and Water Guard Branch.
There would be the maximum resistance from the users—the Customs authorities—the owners—the Ministry of Works—and a public outcry, which would be equally justified, if that building, let alone Billingsgate Market were touched. My right hon. Friend's advisory committee grade that building, with all the damage it has suffered, Grade 1, and my right hon Friend would be very much to blame if he ignored the relative grading that puts Custom House in Grade 1 and the Coal Exchange, for all its interest, in Grade 2.
I must go back to the proposed alternatives. It was proposed that one carriageway should be constructed under the other—a subterranean development of the road, but the cost would be prodigiously disproportionate. Again, it was suggested that the whole building should be moved back 30 ft., but the nature of the structure and the levels behind the site make this impossible. Finally, it was suggested that the outer 20 ft. of the Exchange should be demolished, and the road arcaded 10 ft. under the dome, but it was commonly agreed that this would lead to nothing but a useless eyesore.
The fact is that we cannot possibly ignore the implications of preserving the building at all costs. The construction of the road is now imminent, and work is shortly to be put in hand over lengths of it. Again, the City authorities have proposed to demolish—and I join with the hon. Member in paying my tribute to the City for desisting on the request of my right hon. Friend. But it is right to remind the House that for two and a half years, since the first proposal to demolish, the City has held its hand and has been open to suggestions that part of the building should be moved and incorporated in some other structure. The building is in a bad state of repair and it would cos; a substantial sum of money to put it into decent condition.
Secondly, if it were to be put into decent condition and were let it would not be an economic proposition for the

landlord. He would almost certainly make a substantial loss on it. This would be a sheer burden on the community, in this case the City of London. It would bring not so much beauty to the environment as be a great source of historic and architectural interest. I do not deny that, but the fact is that that sort of historic interest can to some extent be preserved by way of detailed records, photographs, samples, and salving and preservation of, for instance, the murals.
If hon. Members protest about that they must address themselves to the alternatives. We cannot always keep everything. It is much more difficult to keep a building which is not in Grade 1 when it conflicts with a Grade 1 building; it is much more difficult to keep a building which has no function when it conflicts with a building which has a function; it is much more difficult to keep a building which is not in itself beautiful and a joy to the public although it is technically interesting or even technically very interesting and has historical features, the details of which can be preserved by other methods and alternatives.
Another alternative that has not been mentioned is that the road could be kinked. I hope that no hon. Member imagines that this would be a gentle kink. It would be a most substantial one, far more substantial in degree than the very small kink or narrowing that is being tolerated in the road at the Seamen's Memorial. It would mean demolishing part of Custom House—a Grade 1 building—and stopping the use of Custom House, to which the Customs authorities are hoping to return. It would involve interfering with Billingsgate, and all this against the wish of the custodians, the owners and the users of Custom House.
Let us suppose that we were debating not the preservation of the Coal Exchange but of Custom House, because the City of London had proposed to demolish Custom House in order to preserve the Coal Exchange. Would not some hon. Members say that at all costs Custom House must be preserved? Would not a number of authorities claim that that building should take priority over the Coal Exchange? I suggest that my right hon. Friend has no alternative but to take the advice of his Advisory


Committee, which puts the Custom House in Grade 1, whereas it puts the Coal Exchange in Grade 2, although I agree that that is a high grade.
If we reject the suggestion to make a kink in the road, another alternative is to see whether anyone will move and re-erect the building. There has been ample opportunity for somebody to offer this, and I still hope that somebody will offer to do it. I am sure that the City of London would be sympathetic to the idea. We could see whether it is possible to keep this building up until the very last moment, at least to maximise the opportunity for sympathisers to preserve it. Meanwhile, we could take records and make models. The City of London Architect has a model of the building. We could lake samples and prepare a scheme for taking the maximum salvage, if I may use such a term, before it is demolished.
My right hon. Friend is asked to hold an inquiry. It would be technically possible for him to inquire into a suggestion for making a building preservation order against the desires of the London County Council and the City to demolish this building; he would be making a building preservation order at their cost, if he made one. But it would be honourable for my right hon. Friend to have an inquiry only if he had it in mind to follow through that inquiry, if it became necessary, with a building preservation order. My right hon. Friend feels that the cost in terms of money, which would fall not on him but on the local authority, and in terms of disturbance to other valuable buildings and to the highway proposal, would be disproportionate and, if that is his view, it would not be honourable for him, merely for the sake of appearing to be co-operative, to have a public inquiry into a building preservation order when he thought that in the end he would not make that order. In my view, no useful purpose would be served by an inquiry.
One thing which would be intolerable would be if the building were demolished and, in the interval between its demolition and the start of the construction of the road on the site, a proposal came to light which might have saved the building by having it re-erected elsewhere. I therefore suggest—and it is not in my power to do more than suggest—that my right hon. Friend should approach the City to ask the City to leave the demolition until the last practicable moment in order to see whether any alternative which may have been overlooked can be found. It is not in my right hon. Friend's mind to order this; far from it. It is in his mind to ask the City whether it will do this. I cannot tell the House whether the City will be willing.
I must warn the House that the building could be threatened from the back as well as from the front. A planning application involving the destruction of the rear might be put to the City, and the City might legitimately wish to give permission. The life of the building might, therefore, be threatened from that point of view, too. My right hon. Friend is willing to ask the City for this stay of execution to see whether anything can be done in the meantime.
I finish as I began by invoking the hon. Member's own words: this is a question of proportion, of the cost in terms of a Grade 1 building, of a kink in a major highway proposal and of preserving a building for which no function exists at the moment. In my right hon. Friend's view, that makes the cost of preservation of this building disproportionate.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at six minutes to Twelve o'clock.